Teks -- Exodus 21:1-36 (NET)

The Decisions

21:1 “These are the decisions that you will set before them:

Hebrew Servants

21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out free without paying anything. 21:3 If he came in by himself he will go out by himself; if he had a wife when he came in, then his wife will go out with him. 21:4 If his master gave him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters, the wife and the children will belong to her master, and he will go out by himself. 21:5 But if the servant should declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 21:6 then his master must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she will not go out as the male servants do. 21:8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her. 21:9 If he designated her for his son, then he will deal with her according to the customary rights of daughters. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he must not diminish the first one’s food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 21:11 If he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money.

Personal Injuries

21:12 “Whoever strikes someone so that he dies must surely be put to death. 21:13 But if he does not do it with premeditation, but it happens by accident, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. 21:14 But if a man willfully attacks his neighbor to kill him cunningly, you will take him even from my altar that he may die. 21:15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother must surely be put to death. 21:16 “Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death. 21:17 “Whoever treats his father or his mother disgracefully must surely be put to death. 21:18 “If men fight, and one strikes his neighbor with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed, 21:19 and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person’s loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed. 21:20 “If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished. 21:21 However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss. 21:22 “If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. 21:23 But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 21:26 “If a man strikes the eye of his male servant or his female servant so that he destroys it, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the eye. 21:27 If he knocks out the tooth of his male servant or his female servant, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the tooth.

Laws about Animals

21:28 “If an ox gores a man or a woman so that either dies, then the ox must surely be stoned and its flesh must not be eaten, but the owner of the ox will be acquitted. 21:29 But if the ox had the habit of goring, and its owner was warned, and he did not take the necessary precautions, and then it killed a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned and the man must be put to death. 21:30 If a ransom is set for him, then he must pay the redemption for his life according to whatever amount was set for him. 21:31 If the ox gores a son or a daughter, the owner will be dealt with according to this rule. 21:32 If the ox gores a male servant or a female servant, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver, and the ox must be stoned. 21:33 “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 into it, 21:34 the owner of the pit must repay the loss. He must give money to its owner, and the dead animal will become his. 21:35 If the ox of one man injures the ox of his neighbor so that it dies, then they will sell the live ox and divide its proceeds, and they will also divide the dead ox. 21:36 Or if it is known that the ox had the habit of goring, and its owner did not take the necessary precautions, he must surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal will become his.

Tafsiran/Catatan -- Catatan Kata/Frasa (per frasa)

Wesley: 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 enquired 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.

Wesley: Exo 21:2 - If thou buy an Hebrew servant

Either sold by him or his parents through poverty, or by the judges for his crimes, yet even such a one was to continue in slavery but seven years at the most.

Wesley: Exo 21:6 - For ever

As long as he lives, or till the year of Jubilee.

Wesley: Exo 21:8 - Who hath betrothed her to himself

For a concubine, or secondary Wife.

Wesley: Exo 21:8 - Not that Masters always took Maid

servants on these terms.

Wesley: Exo 21:9 - After the manner of daughters

He shall give her a portion, as to a daughter.

Wesley: Exo 21:20

Direction is given what should be done, if a servant died by his master's correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the Negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound, yet if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances.

Wesley: Exo 21:24 - Eye for eye

The execution of this law is not put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it. But magistrates had an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured.

JFB: Exo 21:1 - judgments

Rules for regulating the procedure of judges and magistrates in the decision of cases and the trial of criminals. The government of the Israelites being a theocracy, those public authorities were the servants of the Divine Sovereign, and subject to His direction. Most of these laws here noticed were primitive usages, founded on principles of natural equity, and incorporated, with modifications and improvements, in the Mosaic code.

JFB: Exo 21:2-6 - 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).

JFB: Exo 21:7-11 - if a man sell his daughter

Hebrew girls might be redeemed for a reasonable sum. But in the event of her parents or friends being unable to pay the redemption money, her owner was not at liberty to sell her elsewhere. Should she have been betrothed to him or his son, and either change their minds, a maintenance must be provided for her suitable to her condition as his intended wife, or her freedom instantly granted.

JFB: Exo 21:23-25 - eye for eye

The law which authorized retaliation (a principle acted upon by all primitive people) was a civil one. It was given to regulate the procedure of the public magistrate in determining the amount of compensation in every case of injury, but did not encourage feelings of private revenge. The later Jews, however, mistook it for a moral precept, and were corrected by our Lord (Mat 5:38-42).

JFB: Exo 21:28-36 - If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die

For the purpose of sanctifying human blood, and representing all injuries affecting life in a serious light, an animal that occasioned death was to be killed or suffer punishment proportioned to the degree of damage it had caused. Punishments are still inflicted on this principle in Persia and other countries of the East; and among a rude people greater effect is thus produced in inspiring caution, and making them keep noxious animals under restraint, than a penalty imposed on the owners.

JFB: Exo 21:30 - If there be laid on him a sum of money, &c.

Blood fines are common among the Arabs as they were once general throughout the East. This is the only case where a money compensation, instead of capital punishment, was expressly allowed in the Mosaic law.

Clarke: Exo 21:1 - Now these are the judgments

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, Exo 20:19, that God should communicate his will to Moses, and that Moses should, as mediator, convey it to them.

Clarke: Exo 21:2 - If thou buy a Hebrew servant

If thou buy a Hebrew servant - Calmet enumerates six different ways in which a Hebrew might lose his liberty

1.    In extreme poverty they might sell their liberty. Lev 25:39 : If thy brother be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, etc

2.    A father might sell his children. If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant; see Exo 21:7

3.    Insolvent debtors became the slaves of their creditors. My husband is dead - and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen, 2Ki 4:1

4.    A thief, if he had not money to pay the fine laid on him by the law, was to be sold for his profit whom he had robbed. If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft; Exo 22:3, Exo 22:4

5.    A Hebrew was liable to be taken prisoner in war, and so sold for a slave

6.    A Hebrew slave who had been ransomed from a Gentile by a Hebrew might be sold by him who ransomed him, to one of his own nation

Clarke: Exo 21:2 - Six years he shall serve

Six years he shall serve - It was an excellent provision in these laws, that no man could finally injure himself by any rash, foolish, or precipitate act. No man could make himself a servant or slave for more than seven years; and if he mortgaged the family inheritance, it must return to the family at the jubilee, which returned every fiftieth year

It is supposed that the term six years is to be understood as referring to the sabbatical years; for let a man come into servitude at whatever part of the interim between two sabbatical years, he could not be detained in bondage beyond a sabbatical year; so that if he fell into bondage the third year after a sabbatical year, he had but three years to serve; if the fifth, but one. See Clarke’ s note on Exo 23:11, etc. Others suppose that this privilege belonged only to the year of jubilee, beyond which no man could be detained in bondage, though he had been sold only one year before.

Clarke: Exo 21:3 - If he came in by himself

If he came in by himself - If he and his wife came in together, they were to go out together: in all respects as he entered, so should he go out. This consideration seems to have induced St. Jerome to translate the passage thus: Cum quali veste intraverat, cum tali exeat . "He shall have the same coat in going out, as he had when he came in,"i.e., if he came in with a new one, he shall go out with a new one, which was perfectly just, as the former coat must have been worn out in his master’ s service, and not his own.

Clarke: Exo 21:4 - The wife and her children shall be her master’ s

The wife and her children shall be her master’ s - It was a law among the Hebrews, that if a Hebrew had children by a Canannitish woman, those children must be considered as Canaanitish only, and might be sold and bought, and serve for ever. The law here refers to such a case only.

Clarke: Exo 21:6 - Shall bring him unto the judges

Shall bring him unto the judges - אל האלהים el haelohim , literally, to God; or, as the Septuagint have it, προς το κριτηριον Θεου, to the judgment of God; who condescended to dwell among his people; who determined all their differences till he had given them laws for all cases, and who, by his omniscience, brought to light the hidden things of dishonesty. See Exo 22:8

Clarke: Exo 21:6 - Bore his ear through with an awl

Bore his ear through with an awl - This was a ceremony sufficiently significant, as it implied

1.    That he was closely attached to that house and family

2.    That he was bound to hear all his master’ s orders, and to obey them punctually. Boring of the ear was an ancient custom in the east. It is referred to by Juvenal: -

Prior, inquit, ego adsum

Cur timeam, dubitemve locum defendere? Quamvi

Natus ad Euphraten, Molles quod in Aure Fenestra

Arguerint, licet ipse negem

Sat. i. 102

"First come, first served, he cries; and I, in spit

Of your great lordships, will maintain my right

Though born a slave, though my torn E ars are B ored

‘ Tis not the birth, ‘ tis money makes the lord.

Dryden

Calmet quotes a saying from Petronius as attesting the same thing; and one from Cicero, in which he rallies a Libyan who pretended he did not hear him: "It is not,"said he, "because your ears are not sufficiently bored;"alluding to his having been a slave.

Clarke: Exo 21:7 - If a man sell his daughter

If a man sell his daughter - This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress - when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, 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, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.

Clarke: Exo 21:9 - Betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her

Betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her - He shall give her the same dowry he would give to one of his own daughters. From these laws we learn, that if a man’ s son married his servant, by his father’ s consent, the father was obliged to treat her in every respect as a daughter; and if the son married another woman, as it appears he might do, Exo 21:10, he was obliged to make no abatement in the privileges of the first wife, either in her food, raiment, or duty of marriage. The word ענתה onathah , here, is the same with St. Paul’ s οφειλομενην ευνοιαν, the marriage debt, and with the ὁμιλιαν of the Septuagint, which signifies the cohabitation of man and wife.

Clarke: Exo 21:11 - These three

These three -

1.    Her food, שארה sheerah , her flesh, for she must not, like a common slave, be fed merely on vegetables

2.    Her raiment - her private wardrobe, with all occasional necessary additions. And

3.    The marriage debt - a due proportion of the husband’ s time and company.

Clarke: Exo 21:13 - I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee

I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee - From the earliest times the nearest akin had a right to revenge the murder of his relation, and as this right was universally acknowledged, no law was ever made on the subject; but as this might be abused, and a person who had killed another accidentally, having had no previous malice against him, might be put to death by the avenger of blood, as the nearest kinsman was termed, therefore God provided the cities of refuge to which the accidental manslayer might flee till the affair was inquired into, and settled by the civil magistrate.

Clarke: Exo 21:14 - Thou shalt take him from mine altar

Thou shalt take him from mine altar - Before the cities of refuge were assigned, the altar of God was the common asylum.

Clarke: Exo 21:15 - That smiteth his father, or his mother

That smiteth his father, or his mother - As such a case argued peculiar depravity, therefore no mercy was to be shown to the culprit.

Clarke: Exo 21:16 - He that stealeth a man

He that stealeth a man - By this law every man-stealer, and every receiver of the stolen person, should lose his life; no matter whether the latter stole the man himself, or gave money to a slave captain or negro-dealer to steal him for him.

Clarke: Exo 21:19 - Shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed

Shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed - This was a wise and excellent institution, and most courts of justice still regulate their decisions on such cases by this Mosaic precept.

Clarke: Exo 21:21 - If the slave who had been beaten by his master died under his hand, the master was punished with death

If the slave who had been beaten by his master died under his hand, the master was punished with death - see Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6. But if he survived the beating a day or two the master was not punished, because it might be presumed that the man died through some other cause. And all penal laws should be construed as favourably as possible to the accused.

Clarke: Exo 21:22 - And hurt a woman with child

And hurt a woman with child - As a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and as every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, therefore any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fruit of her womb might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offense; and as the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder - the person was put to death; Exo 21:23.

Clarke: Exo 21:24 - Eye for eye

Eye for eye - This is the earliest account we have of the lex talionis , or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter, it constituted a part of the twelve tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the praetor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the canon law, in reference to all calumniators: Calumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat . "If the calumniator fall in the proof of his accusation, let him suffer the same punishment which he wished to have inflicted upon the man whom he falsely accused."Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved, otherwise the lex talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sown the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness.

Clarke: Exo 21:26 - If a man smite the eye, etc.

If a man smite the eye, etc. - See the following verse.

Clarke: Exo 21:27 - If he smite out his - tooth

If he smite out his - tooth - It was a noble law that obliged the unmerciful slaveholder to set the slave at liberty whose eye or tooth he had knocked out. If this did not teach them humanity, it taught them caution, as one rash blow might have deprived them of all right to the future services of the slave; and thus self-interest obliged them to be cautious and circumspect.

Clarke: Exo 21:28 - If an ox gore a man

If an ox gore a man - It is more likely that a bull is here intended, as the word signifies both, see Exo 22:1; and the Septuagint translate the שור shor of the original by ταυρος, a bull. Mischief of this kind was provided against by most nations. It appears that the Romans twisted hay about the horns of their dangerous cattle, that people seeing it might shun them; hence that saying of Horace. Sat., lib. i., sat. 4, ver. 34: Faenum habet in cornu, longe fuge . "He has hay on his horns; fly for life!"The laws of the twelve tables ordered, That the owner of the beast should pay for what damages he committed, or deliver him to the person injured. See Clarke’ s note on Exo 22:1

Clarke: Exo 21:28 - His flesh shall not be eaten

His flesh shall not be eaten - 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.

Clarke: Exo 21:30 - If there be laid on him a sum of money - the ransom of his life

If there be laid on him a sum of money - the ransom of his life - So it appears that, though by the law he forfeited his life, yet this might be commuted for a pecuniary mulct, at which the life of the deceased might be valued by the magistrates.

Clarke: Exo 21:32 - Thirty shekels

Thirty shekels - Each worth about three shillings English; see Gen 20:16; Gen 23:15. So, counting the shekel at its utmost value, the life of a slave was valued at four pounds ten shillings. And at this price these same vile people valued the life of our blessed Lord; see Zec 11:12, Zec 11:13; Mat 26:15. And in return, the justice of God has ordered it so, that they have been sold for slaves into every country of the universe. And yet, strange to tell, they see not the hand of God in so visible a retribution!

Clarke: Exo 21:33 - And if a man shall open a pit, or - dig a pit

And if a man shall open a pit, or - dig a pit - That is, if a man shall open a well or cistern that had been before closed up, or dig a new one; for these two cases are plainly intimated: and if he did this in some public place where there was danger that men or cattle might fall into it; for a man might do as he pleased in his own grounds, as those were his private right. In the above case, if he had neglected to cover the pit, and his neighbor’ s ox or ass was killed by falling into it, he was to pay its value in money. Exo 21:33 and Exo 21:34 seem to be out of their places. They probably should conclude the chapters, as, where they are, they interrupt the statutes concerning the goring ox, which begin at Exo 21:28

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. Most criminal codes of jurisprudence seem more intent on the punishment of crimes than on preventing the commission of them. The law of God always teaches and warns, that his creatures may not fall into condemnation; for judgment is his strange work, i.e., one reluctantly and seldom executed, as this text is frequently understood.

Calvin: Exo 21:1 - Now these are the judgments

1.Now these are the judgments. Both passages contain the same appointment, viz., that as to the Hebrews slavery must end at the seventh year; for God would have the children of Abraham, although obliged to sell themselves, to differ from heathen and ordinary slaves. Their enfranchisement is, therefore, enjoined, but with an exception, which Moses expresses in the first passage but omits in the latter, i e. , that if the slave had married a bond-woman, and had begotten children, they should remain with the master, and that he should alone be free. Whence it appears how hard was the condition of slaves, since it could not be mitigated without an unnatural exception ( sine prodigio;) for nothing could be more opposed to nature than that a husband, forsaking his wife and children, should remove himself elsewhere. But the tie of slavery could only be loosed by divorce, that is to say, by this impious violation of marriage. There was then gross barbarity in this severance, whereby a man was disunited from half of himself and his own bowels. Yet there was no remedy for it; for if the wife and children had been set free, it would have been a spoliation of their lawful master to take them with him, not only because the woman was his slave, but because he had incurred expense in the bringing up of the young children. The sanctity of marriage therefore gave way in this case to private right; and this defect is to be reckoned amongst the others which God tolerated on account of the people’s hardness of heart, because it could hardly be remedied; yet, if any one were withheld by chaste affection, and unwilling to abandon his wife and offspring, an alternative is presented, viz., that he should give himself up also to perpetual slavery. The form of this is more clearly pointed out in Exodus than in Deuteronomy; for, in the latter, it is only said that the master, in order to assert his perpetual right to the slave, should bore his ear; whereas in Exodus the circumstance is added, that a public process should first take place; for, if each private individual had been his own judge in this matter, the rich men’s houses would have been like slaughterhouses to put their wretched slaves to the torment in. ¹⁴⁸ We read in Jeremiah, (Jer 34:11,) that this law fell into contempt, and that the Jews, contrary to all law and justice, retained perpetual dominion over their slaves; nay, that when they were severely reprimanded under King Zedekiah, and liberty was anew proclaimed, the wretched men were immediately dragged back to their yoke of tyranny, as if they had been set free in mockery. Care was therefore to be taken lest, by secret tortures, they should compel the unwilling to continue as their slaves; and the provision against this evil was an open confession of their desire before the judges; whilst the boring of the ear was a kind of stigma upon them. For the Orientals were accustomed to brand slaves, or fugitives, or criminals, or those who were in any wise suspected; and although God did not choose to have this mark of ignominy imprinted on the foreheads of his people, yet, if any one voluntarily consented to endure perpetual slavery, He willed that he should bear this token of his servitude upon his ear. Still we must remember that even this slavery, although it is said to endure for ever, was brought to a close at the jubilee, because then the condition of the land and people was altogether renewed.

Calvin: Exo 21:7 - NO PHRASE

From this passage, as well as other similar ones, it plainly appears how many vices were of necessity tolerated in this people. It was altogether an act of barbarism that fathers should sell their children for the relief of their poverty, still it could not be corrected as might have been hoped. Again, the sanctity of the marriage-vow should have been greater than that it should be allowable for a master to repudiate his bond-maid, after he had betrothed her to himself as his wife; or, when he had betrothed her to his son, to make void that covenant, which is inviolable: for that principle ought ever to hold good — “Those whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” ( Mat 19:6; Mar 10:9.) Yet liberty was accorded to the ancient people in all these particulars; only provision is here made that the poor girls should not suffer infamy and injury from their repudiation. But, although God is gracious in remitting the punishment, still He shows that chastity is pleasing to Him, as far as the people’s hardness of heart permitted. First of all, He does not allow a master to seduce his purchased maid-servant, but if he wishes to enjoy her embraces, a marriage must take place; for although He does not set this out in express terms, still we may infer from what He condemns, that the contrary is what He approves. From whence, too, their notion is refuted who suppose that fornication was lawful under the Law. But the words must be more closely examined on account of their ambiguity. First, the sex is treated with consideration, that the condition of a female may be somewhat more favorable than that of a male; since, otherwise, their weakness would render young women subject to injury and shame. An explanation then follows, respecting which, however, interpreters differ; for some read the particle לא , ⁷⁴ lo, which is properly negative, for לו , lo; and hence arise two opposite meanings — If he hath, or hath not, betrothed her to himself. If it be preferred to take it affirmatively, the meaning of the precept will be: If a master shall repudiate his bond-maid, whom he has loved and destined to be his wife, he must give her her liberty; for although literally it is, “he shall cause her to be redeemed,” yet; the context shows that the obligation of setting her free is laid upon him; nor is this contradicted by the fact that he is only deprived of the power of selling her to a strange people; since I do not understand this as applying to foreigners only, but to others of his own nation, since sometimes those of another tribe or family are called strangers. For, even though there were no marriage-compact, it was not otherwise lawful to sell slaves of the holy and elect people to foreigners. Besides, amongst the Israelites, slavery was only temporary. But, to pass by everything else, let it suffice to observe the absurdity that a master should hold his wife as a slave to be sold at pleasure, if their opinion is received who suppose that the words refer to repudiation after betrothal. ⁷⁵ I myself rather approve of the other opinion, that, although the master shall not have aspired to matrimony with her, if her appearance displeases him so that he would be unwilling to have her as his wife, at least he must provide for her redemption; because her chastity would be in jeopardy if she remained with him unmarried; unless perhaps Moses may signify that, after she had been seduced, her master did not honor her with marriage. But the other view which I have just expressed is more simple; and a caution is given lest masters should seduce their maid-servants at their pleasure. Thus the word despise ⁷⁶ does not refer to repudiation, but is opposed to beauty, or conjugal love.

The next case is, that if he should betroth her to his son, (he must give her a dowry, ⁷⁷) in which, also, her modesty and honor is consulted, lest she should be oppressed by the right of ownership, and become a harlot. In the third place, it is provided that, if she should be repudiated, her condition should not be disadvantageous. If, therefore, he would make her his daughter-in-law, and betroth her to his son, he is commanded to deal liberally with her; for “after the manner of daughters” is equivalent to giving her a dowry, or, at any rate, to treating her as if she were free. Finally, he adds that, if he should choose another wife for his son, he should not reject the former one, nor defraud her of her food and raiment, or of some third thing, concerning which translators are not well agreed. Some render it time, but I do not see what is the meaning of diminishing her time; others, duty of marriage, but this is too free a translation; others, more correctly, affliction, since the girl would be humiliated by her repudiation; still, to diminish affliction, is too harsh an expression for to compensate an injury. Let my readers, then, consider whether the word, ענתה , gnonathah, is not used for compact or agreement; for thus the context will run very well: If his son have married another wife, that the girl who has suffered ignominious rejection should obtain her rights as to food, and raiment, and her appointed dowry; otherwise, God commands that she should be set free gratuitously, in order that her liberty may compensate for the wrong she has received.

Calvin: Exo 21:12 - NO PHRASE

12.=== He === that smiteth a man, so that he die. This passage, as I have said, more clearly explains the details, and first makes a distinction between voluntary and accidental homicide; for, if a stone or an axe (Deu 19:5.) may have slipped from a man unintentionally, and struck anybody, He would not have it accounted a capital crime. And for this purpose the cities of refuge were given, of which brief mention is here made, and whose rights will be presently more fully spoken of, and where also the mode of distinguishing between design and ignorance will be laid down. But it must be remarked, that Moses declares that accidental homicide, as it is commonly called, does not happen by chance or accident, but according to the will of God, as if He himself led out the person, who is killed, to death. By whatever kind of death, therefore, men are taken away, it is certain that we live or die only at His pleasure; and surely, if not even a sparrow can fall to the ground except by His will, (Mat 10:29,) it would be very absurd that men created in His image should be abandoned to the blind impulses of fortune. Wherefore it must be concluded, as Scripture elsewhere teaches, that the term of each man’s life is appointed, ²⁹ with which another passage corresponds,

“Thou turnest man to destruction, and savest,
Return, ye children of men.” (Psa 90:3.)

It is true, indeed, that whatever has no apparent cause or necessity seems to us to be fortuitous; and thus, whatever, according to nature, might happen otherwise we call accidents, ( contingentia;) yet in the meantime it must be remembered, that what might else incline either way is governed by God’s secret counsel, so that nothing is done without His arrangement and decree. In this way we do not suppose a fate ³⁰ such as the Stoics invented; for it is a different tiling to say that things which of themselves incline to various and doubtful events, are directed by the hand of God whithersoever He will, and to say that necessity governs them in accordance with the perpetual complication of causes, ³¹ and that this happens with God’s connivance; nay, nothing can be more opposite than that God should be drawn and carried away by a fatal motive power, or that He tempers all things as He sees fit.

There is no reason to follow the Jews here in philosophizing more deeply, that none are delivered to death but those in whom God finds cause for it. It is indeed certain, that with God there always exists the best reason for His acts; but it is wrong to elicit from thence that those who by tits guidance meet with death must be guilty of some offense. Nor even if God should take away an innocent man, would it bc lawful to murmur against Him; as if His justice were naught, because it is concealed from us, and indeed incomprehensible.

Calvin: Exo 21:14 - NO PHRASE

14.=== But === if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor. He expresses the same thing in different ways; for although there is a wide difference between slaying a man presumptuously ³² and with guile, yet Moses applies them both to a willful murder; for by guile he means a wicked disposition to injure, and by the word presumptuous he designates a violent assault, when a man in hate wantonly falls upon another. And surely truculence, and violence, and all cruelty is presumptuous, ( superba;) for unless a man despised his brother, he would not assail him as an enemy.

Lest by overlooking murders they should defile the land, God commands that murderers should be torn away even from His altar, whereby He signifies that they are as unworthy of divine as of human aid. For, although the sanctity of the altar might afford an asylum for the protection of those who had transgressed through imprudence, or. error, yet it would have been wrong that impunity for crimes should have been derived from hence; because the sanctuary would have been thus converted into a den of thieves, and religion would have been subjected to gross profanation. Wherefore, although criminals embracing the altar should implore God’s aid, the Law commands them to be torn away from thence to punishment, because it would have been disgraceful to abuse God’s sacred name as affording license for sin. Hence it appears how great was the folly of old in supposing that churches were honored when they were made asylums for the encouragement of evil deeds. This, indeed, was derived from the ordinary custom of the heathen; but it was a foolish imitation thus to mix up God with idols in a spurious worship; although in this respect the Gentiles served their idols more purely and virtuously than the Christians ³³ served God; for they refused the right of asylum to the sacrilegious and impure, so that the temple of the Samothracians was no secure hiding-place even to Perseus, ³⁴ the king of Macedon. Livy records the following words, as having been spoken by a heathen, — “Since, at the commencement of all our sacrifices, those whose hands are not pure are enjoined to retire, will ye suffer your sanctuaries to be contaminated by the blood-stained person of a robber?” Let us, then, be ashamed of polluting our temples under the pretext of reverence for them.

Calvin: Exo 21:15 - NO PHRASE

The commandment is now sanctioned by the denunciation of capital punishment for its violation, yet not so as to comprehend all who have in any respect sinned against their parents, but sufficient to show that the rights of parents are sacred, and not to be violated without the greatest criminality. We know that parricides ⁸ as being the most detestable of all men, were formerly sewn up in a leathern sack and cast into the water; but God proceeds further, when He commands all those to be exterminated who have laid violent hands on their parents ⁹ or addressed them in abusive language. For to smite does not only mean to kill, but refers to any violence, although no wound may have been inflicted. If, then, any one had struck his father or mother with his fist, or with a stick, the punishment of such an act of madness was the same as for murder. And, assuredly, it is an abominable and monstrous thing for a son not to hesitate to assault those from whom he has received his life; nor can it be but that impunity accorded to so foul a crime must straightway produce cruel barbarism. The second law avenges not only violence done to parents, but also, abusive words, which soon proceed to grosser insults and atrocious contempt. Still, if any one should have lightly let drop some slight reproach, as is often the case ill a quarrel, this severe punishment was not to be inflicted upon such, all inconsiderate piece of impertinence: and the word קלל , kalal, from which the participle used by Moses is derived, not only means to reproach, but also to curse, as well as to esteem lightly, and to despise. Whilst, therefore, not every insult, whereby the reverence due to parents was violated, received the punishment of death, still God would have that impious pride, which would subvert the first principles of nature, held in abhorrence. But, inasmuch as it might seem hard that a word, ¹⁰ however unworthy of a dutiful son, should be the cause of death; this objection is met, by what is added by God in Leviticus, “his blood shall be upon him, because he hath cursed his father or mother:” as if He would put a stop to what men might otherwise presume to allege in mitigation of the severity of the punishment.

Calvin: Exo 21:18 - NO PHRASE

18.=== And === if men strive together. The punishment here enacted for wounds and blows is so slight, that it might have served as a provocative to the mischievousness of the ill-disposed. Since the Law of the Twelve Tables only inflicted a fine of twenty-five asses upon a man who had beaten another unjustly, there was a certain Lucius Veratius, ³⁵ who, in mere wanton sport, did not hesitate to box the ears of any one he met, and then to command one of his slaves to pay the amount of the fine, so that it was at length thought better that the law should fall into desuetude, than to suffer it to be thus ridiculously abused. The same thing might easily happen among the Jews, since a person, who had so beaten his neighbor as that he should lie in bed, only had to pay what the unhappy man had expended on his cure. For who would not willingly enjoy the pleasure of knocking down his enemies on this condition, of providing for their subsistence whilst they lay in bed? But we must remember the declaration of Christ, that on account of the perverse nature of the Jews, many things were allowed them “because of the hardness of their hearts,” (Mat 19:8, and Mar 10:5,) amongst which this indulgent provision is to be reckoned. Still God seems to have dealt more leniently with the man who had struck the blow, that He might also chastise the other, who, though of inferior strength, had rashly engaged in the conflict; for both were to be alike punished for the violence unjustly inflicted. Equal lenity seems, therefore, to have been shown to both, since compensation is only made to the person struck for his private loss. ³⁶ But the fact, that God did not carry out the political laws to their perfection, shows that by this leniency He wished to reprove the people’s perverseness, which could not even bear to obey so mild a law. Whenever, therefore, God seems to pardon too easily: and with too much clemency, let us recollect that He designedly deviated from the more perfect rule, because He, had to do with an intractable people.

Calvin: Exo 21:20 - NO PHRASE

20.=== And === if a man smite his servant. Although in civil matters there was a wide distinction between slaves and free-men, still, that God may show how dear and precious men’s lives are to Him, He has no respect to persons with regard to murder; but avenges the death of a slave and a free-man in the same way, if he should die immediately of his wound. Indeed, it was a proof of gross barbarism amongst the Romans and other nations, to give to masters the power of life and death; for men are bound together by a more sacred tie, than that it should be permitted to a master to kill with impunity his wretched slave; nor are some men so set over others, as that they should exercise tyranny, or robbery, neither does reason permit that any private individual should usurp to himself the power of the sword. But, although unjust cruelty was not prohibited, as it should have been, by the laws of Rome, yet they ³⁷ confessed that slaves should be used like hired servants. The exception, which immediately follows, does not seem very consistent, for, if the slave should die after some time, the penalty of murder is remitted; whereas it would often be preferable to die at once of a single wound, than to perish by a lingering illness; and it might happen that the slave should be so bruised and maimed by blows, as to die some time afterwards. In this ease, the cruelty of the master would be surely greater than if he had committed the murder under the impulse of burning anger: wherefore the enactment appears to be a very unjust one. But it must be remarked, that the murder of those slaves, who had been obliged to take to their bed from their wounds, was not unpunished. Whence we gather, that it was not allowable for cruel and truculent masters to wound their slaves severely; and this is what the words expressly imply, for the smiter is only exempted from punishment when he shall have so restrained himself as that the marks of his cruelty should not appear. For that the slaves should “stand for one or two days,” ³⁸ is equivalent to saying, that they were perfect and sound in all their members; but if a wound had been inflicted, or there was any mutilation, the smiter was guilty of murder. None, therefore, is absolved but he who only meant to chastise his slave; and where no injury appears, it is probable that there was no intention to kill him. Whilst, then, this law prohibits bloodthirsty assaults, it by no means gives greater license to murder. The reason, which is added, must be restricted to the private loss; because a murderer would never be absolved on the pretext that he had purchased his slave with money, since the life of a man cannot be so estimated.

Calvin: Exo 21:22 - NO PHRASE

22.=== If === men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death ³⁹ only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, ( homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother. Besides, it would be by no means reasonable that a father should sell for a set sum the life of his son or daughter. Wherefore this, in my opinion, is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the wound abortively, or soon after its birth. But, since it could not fail but that premature confinement would weaken both the mother and her offspring, the husband is allowed to demand before the judges a money-payment, at their discretion, in compensation for his loss; for although God’s command is only that the money should be paid before the judges, ⁴⁰ still He thus appoints them to settle the amount as arbitrators, if the husband should chance to be too exorbitant. We plainly perceive, by the repetition of the lex talionis, that a just proportion is to be observed, and that the amount of punishment is to be equally regulated, whether as to a tooth, or an eye, or life itself, so that the compensation should correspond with the injury done; and therefore (what is first said of the life ⁴¹) is correctly applied also to the several parts, so that he who has plucked out his brother’s eye, or cut off his hand, or broken his leg, should lose his own eye, or hand, or leg. In fine, for the purpose of preventing all violence, a compensation is to be paid in proportion to the injury. But although God commands punishment to be inflicted on the guilty, still, if a man be injured, he ought not to seek for vengeance; for God does not contradict Himself, who so often exhorts His children not only to endure injuries patiently, but even to overcome evil with good. The murderer is to be punished, or he who has maimed a member of his brother; but it is not therefore lawful, if you have unjustly suffered violence, to indulge in wrath or hatred, so as to render evil for evil. Since this error was rife among the Jews, our Lord refutes it, and teaches that the punishment, which is publicly awarded to the wrong-doer, is not subservient to every man’s private passion, so that he who is offended should make haste to retaliate. (Mat 5:38.) Nor indeed are these words addressed to them in order to inflame or excite the desire of vengeance, but all violence is restrained by the fear of punishment.

Calvin: Exo 21:26 - NO PHRASE

26.=== And === if a man smite the eye. Since, in the sight of God, there is neither slave nor free-man, it is clear that he sins as greatly who smites a slave, as if he had struck a free-man. Still, a distinction is made as regards the civil law and human justice, especially if any one have inflicted a wound on his own slave. For here a tooth for a tooth, or an eye for an eye, is not required, but the superiority, which he has improperly abused, is taken from the master; and in compensation for the injury, liberty, which is almost half their life, is given to the male or female slave. Thus, in consideration that it was his slave, t. he master is treated more leniently, when the severity of the punishment is thus mitigated; whilst, in compensation for his dislocation or fracture, the slave receives what is more advantageous to him, viz., that, being set free, he should not be exposed to another’s cruelty.

Calvin: Exo 21:28 - NO PHRASE

28.=== If === an ox gore a man. Moses now descends even to the brute animals, so that, if they injured any one, by their punishment men may be more and more deterred from shedding blood. If, therefore, a goring ox have killed a man, he commands that it should be stoned, and that its carcass should be thrown away as abominable. Though censorious persons mock at this law, as if it were childish to punish a wretched animal, in which there is no criminality, their insolence requires but a brief refutation. For, since oxen were created for man’s good, so we need not wonder that their death, as well as their life, should be made to contribute to the public advantage. If, then, an ox that had killed a, man should be kept, men would undoubtedly grow hardened in cruelty by beholding it; and to eat its flesh, would be almost the same thing as eating the flesh of man. The cruelty of men, therefore, could not better be restrained, so that they should hold the murder of each other in abhorrence, than by thus avenging a man’s death. In the second place, God proceeds further, condemning the master of the ox himself to death, if he had been previously admonished to beware; for such a warning takes away the pretext of ignorance; nor should the punishment seem to be severe for gross neglect, because to give free outlet to dangerous beasts is equivalent to compassing men’s death. He who knowingly and willfully exposes the life of his brother to peril, is justly accounted his murderer. The exception which is finally added, at first sight contains a kind of contradiction, because it was forbidden by the Law to compound with a murderer for money. But inasmuch as a delinquency ( delictum) differs from a crime, although it was unlawful to covenant with murderers for the remission of their punishment, still the judges were permitted on their hearing of the case, to mitigate it, if a man were excused by his unconsciousness or inadvertency. This, then, is a special exception, which permits the judges to distinguish between the nature of offenses; viz., that, if they discovered a man not to be worthy of death, they should still punish his negligence by a pecuniary fine.

Calvin: Exo 21:31 - NO PHRASE

31.=== Whether === he have gored a son. I know not whether they are correct who refer this to age, as if any young persons of either sex were meant by the words son and daughter; but I do not reject this opinion. Still Moses seems to extend the law, as if, in case a butting ox had killed its owner’s son, the father himself should be subject to the punishment, for not having taken more care of his children. It might, however, be doubted, whether it would be just to condemn to death a father already weighed down by the loss of his child; still it affords a useful example, that parents should not escape with impunity, if their sons or daughters should die by their fault.

Calvin: Exo 21:32 - NO PHRASE

32.=== If === the ox shall push a man-servant. It is not unreasonable that the punishment for the death of a slave should now be set at less than for that of a free-man. As regarded the crime of voluntary murder, there was no distinction between slaves and masters; but in a case of mischance ( delicto) the severity might in some degree be mitigated; especially when the stoning of the ox sufficiently availed for bringing murder into detestation. God, therefore, showed admirable moderation in condemning the negligence of the master to be punished by the payment of thirty shekels; whilst He proposed the ox as an example, and reminded all by its death, how very precious in His sight is human blood.

Calvin: Exo 21:33 - And if a man shall open a pit

33.And if a man shall open a pit He enumerates still more cases of damage inflicted, in which restitution is to be demanded of the person who gave occasion for the occurrence. First, it is said, If a man shall open a pit, or cistern, and not cover it, and an animal shall fall into it, he is bound to pay its value; and justly, since his carelessness approaches to actual guilt. Here, again, we see how God would have all men to be anxious for their neighbor’s advantage; yet, inasmuch as there was no fraud or malice in the case, he is permitted, after paying its price, to appropriate the carcass to himself. But, if one man’s ox should be killed by another’s, a most just appointment is made, viz., that, if it happened unexpectedly, and by sudden accident, they should divide the dead ox between them, and, having sold the other, each should take half the price; but if the ox was a savage one, that its owner should undergo a greater penalty by paying its full price; because he ought to have anticipated the mischief, and thus was scarcely so kind as he should have been, giving occasion to the injury.

Defender: Exo 21:6 - bore his ear

This ordinance is very significant, since it is the first given after the ten commandments. This first ordinance and those that follow center first on the most humble members of society (the slaves - recognizing the then-universal existence of slavery and ameliorating the practice), then on other people, then on property - thus establishing God's priorities. Second, right at the beginning of the dispensation of Law, we are given a typological picture of God's Servant, who would someday come to bear the curse of the Law for us, saving us by His grace. The slave, with full right to be set free in his seventh year, chooses rather to stay in the will of his master, listening to his voice only - symbolized and sealed by the opening in his ear. Just so, Christ said prophetically: "Mine ears hast thou opened: ... 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" (Psa 40:6-8). The fulfillment of this prophecy is described in Heb 10:5-10. There, the opening of the ears of the Servant is included in the preparation of the Lord's human body "to do thy will, O God ... By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:7, Heb 10:10)."

TSK: Exo 21:1 - the judgments // which

the judgments : Lev 18:5, Lev 18:26, Lev 19:37, Lev 20:22; Num 35:24, Num 36:13; Deu 5:1, Deu 5:31, Deu 6:20; 1Ki 6:12; 2Ch 19:10; Neh 9:13, Neh 9:14, Neh 10:29; Psa 147:19; Eze 20:11, Eze 20:25; Mal 4:4

which : Exo 19:7, Exo 24:3, Exo 24:4; Deu 4:5, Deu 4:8, Deu 4:14, Deu 4:45, Deu 6:20; Mat 28:20; 1Th 4:1

TSK: Exo 21:2 - an Hebrew // and in the

an Hebrew : Exo 12:44, Exo 22:3; Gen 27:28, Gen 27:36; Lev 25:39-41, Lev 25:44; 2Ki 4:1; Neh 5:1-5, Neh 5:8; Mat 18:25; 1Co 6:20

and in the : Lev 25:40-43, Lev 25:45; Deu 15:1, Deu 15:12-15, Deu 15:18, Deu 31:10; Jer 34:8-17

TSK: Exo 21:3 - by himself

by himself : Heb. with his body, Deu 15:12-14

TSK: Exo 21:4 - shall be her

shall be her : Exo 4:22; Gen 14:14, Gen 15:3, Gen 17:13, Gen 17:27, Gen 18:19; Ecc 2:7; Jer 2:14

TSK: Exo 21:5 - And if // shall plainly say

And if : Deu 15:16, Deu 15:17; Isa 26:13; 2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15

shall plainly say : Heb. saying shall say

TSK: Exo 21:6 - the judges // bore his ear // for ever

the judges : Exo 21:22, Exo 12:12, Exo 18:21-26, Exo 22:8, Exo 22:9, Exo 22:28; Num 25:5-8; Deu 1:16, Deu 16:18; Deu 19:17, Deu 19:18; 1Sa 8:1, 1Sa 8:2; Isa 1:26; Zep 3:3

bore his ear : This significant ceremony was intended as a mark of permanent servitude, and was calculated to impress the servant with the duty of hearing all his master’ s orders, and obeying them punctually. Psa 40:6-8

for ever : Lev 25:23, Lev 25:40; Deu 15:17; 1Sa 1:22, 1Sa 27:12, 1Sa 28:2; 1Ki 12:7

TSK: Exo 21:7 - sell // go out

sell : Neh 5:5

go out : Exo 21:2, Exo 21:3

TSK: Exo 21:8 - please not // who hath // seeing

please not : Heb. be evil in the eyes of, etc. Gen 28:8; Jdg 14:3; 1Sa 8:6, 1Sa 18:8 *marg.

who hath : Deu 20:7, Deu 21:11-14

seeing : Exo 8:29; Jdg 9:19; Job 6:15; Mal 2:11-15

TSK: Exo 21:9 - betrothed her unto

betrothed her unto : Exo 22:17; Gen 38:11; Lev 22:13

TSK: Exo 21:10 - her food

her food : Sheairah , ""her flesh;""he shall not only afford her a sufficient quantity of food, as before, but of the same quality. She is not to be fed, like a common slave, with a sufficiency of bread, vegetables, milk, etc., but with her customary supply of flesh, and other agreeable articles of food. 1Co 7:1-6

TSK: Exo 21:11

Exo 21:2

TSK: Exo 21:12

Exo 20:13; Gen 9:6; Lev 24:17; Num 35:16-24, Num 35:30, Num 35:31; Deu 19:11-13; 2Sa 12:13; Mat 26:52

TSK: Exo 21:13 - lie not // God // I will appoint

lie not : Num 35:11, Num 35:22; Deu 19:4-6, Deu 19:11; Mic 7:2

God : 1Sa 24:4, 1Sa 24:10, 1Sa 24:18; 2Sa 16:10; Isa 10:7

I will appoint : Num 35:11; Deu 4:41-43, Deu 19:1-3, Deu 19:9; Jos 20:2-9

TSK: Exo 21:14 - presumptuously // slay // take him

presumptuously : Num 15:30, Num 15:31; Deu 1:43, Deu 17:12, Deu 17:13, Deu 18:22, Deu 19:11-13; 1Ki 2:29-34; Psa 19:13; Heb 10:26; 2Pe 2:10

slay : Num 35:20, Num 35:21; Deu 27:24; 2Sa 3:27, 2Sa 20:9, 2Sa 20:10

take him : 1Ki 1:50, 1Ki 1:51, 1Ki 2:28-34; 2Ki 11:15

TSK: Exo 21:15

To smite either father or mother, in a manner which indicated either contempt or malice, or left marks of violence, was deemed a proof of so ungrateful and unnatural a disposition, that no provocation was admitted as an excuse, but the offence was made capitalcaps1 . ncaps0 ay, he who cursed his father or mother, who uttered imprecations, ill wishes, or revilings, against a parent, was included in the same sense; though few crimes were made capital by the law of Moses. The law of God, as delegated to parents is honoured when they are honoured, and despised when they are despised, and to rebel against the lawful exercise of this authority is rebellion against God. - Rev. T. Scott

Deu 21:18-21, Deu 27:24; Pro 30:11, Pro 30:17; 1Ti 1:9

TSK: Exo 21:16 - stealeth // selleth him // found in

stealeth : Gen 40:15; Deu 24:7; 1Ti 1:10; Rev 18:12

selleth him : Gen 37:28

found in : Exo 22:4

TSK: Exo 21:17 - curseth

curseth : or, revilteth, Lev 20:9; Deu 27:16; Pro 20:20, Pro 30:11, Pro 30:17; Mat 15:3-6; Mar 7:10, Mar 7:11

TSK: Exo 21:18 - men // another // a stone

men : Exo 21:22, Exo 2:13; Deu 25:11; 2Sa 14:6

another : or, his neighbour

a stone : Exo 21:20; Num 35:16-24

TSK: Exo 21:19 - upon his staff // only he shall pay // the loss

upon his staff : 2Sa 3:29; Zec 8:4

only he shall pay : This was a wise and excellent institution. The same provision is made in the civil law; and most courts of justice still regulate their decisions in such cases by this Mosaic precept.

the loss : Heb. his ceasing

TSK: Exo 21:20 - smite // he shall // punished

smite : Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27; Deu 19:21; Pro 29:19; Isa 58:3, Isa 58:4

he shall : Gen 9:6; Num 35:30-33

punished : Heb. avenged, Gen 4:15, Gen 4:24; Num 35:19; Rom 13:4

TSK: Exo 21:21

Lev 25:45, Lev 25:46

TSK: Exo 21:22 - strive // as the judges

strive : Exo 21:18

as the judges : Exo 21:30; Deu 16:18, Deu 22:18, Deu 22:19

TSK: Exo 21:23 - life for life

life for life : Num 35:31

TSK: Exo 21:24

This is the earliest account we have of the ταυτοπαθεια , tautopatheia , Lex Talionis , law of like for like.

Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27; Lev 24:19, Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21; Jdg 1:6, Jdg 1:7; 1Sa 15:33; Mat 5:38-40, Mat 7:2; Luk 6:38; Rev 16:6

TSK: Exo 21:26

Exo 21:20; Deu 16:19; Neh 5:5; Job 31:13-15; Psa 9:12, Psa 10:14, Psa 10:18, Psa 72:12-14; Pro 22:22, Pro 22:23; Eph 6:9; Col 4:1

TSK: Exo 21:27 - smite

smite : Exo 21:19

TSK: Exo 21:28 - the ox

the ox : Exo 21:32; Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6; Lev 20:15, Lev 20:16

TSK: Exo 21:29 - his owner also

his owner also : Deu 21:1-9

TSK: Exo 21:30 - for the ransom

for the ransom : Exo 21:22, Exo 30:12; Num 35:31-33; Pro 13:8

TSK: Exo 21:31 - judgment

judgment : or, sentence, Exo 21:31

TSK: Exo 21:32 - and the ox

Gen 37:28; Zec 11:12, Zec 11:13; Mat 26:15, Mat 27:3-9; Phi 2:7

and the ox : Exo 21:28, Exo 21:29

TSK: Exo 21:33

Psa 9:15, Psa 119:85; Pro 28:10; Ecc 10:8; Jer 18:20, Jer 18:22

TSK: Exo 21:34

Exo 21:29, Exo 21:30, Exo 22:6, Exo 22:14

TSK: Exo 21:36

Exo 21:29

Tafsiran/Catatan -- Catatan Kata/Frasa (per Ayat)

Poole: Exo 21:2

If thou buy an Hebrew servant; of which practice see Jer 34:14 . This was allowed in two cases:

1. When a man for his crimes was condemned by the judges to be sold; of which see Exo 22:3 2Ki 4:1 Mat 8:25 .

2. When a man pressed by great poverty sold himself or his children; of which see Lev 25:39,40 . The seventh year is to be numbered, either,

1. From the last sabbatical year, or year of release, which came every seventh year; and the sense of the place is, not that he shall always serve six full years, but that he shall never serve longer, and that his service shall last only till that year comes. Or rather,

2. From the beginning of his service; for,

1. It were a very improper speech to say, he shall serve six years, of one who possibly entered into his service but a month before the year of release.

2. In the law of the sabbatical year there is no mention of the release of servants, as there is of other things, Le 25 De 15 ; and in the year of jubilee, when servants are to be released, it is expressed so, as Lev 25:54,55 .

Poole: Exo 21:3 - By himself

By himself i.e. with his own person only, not with a wife, as the opposite branch showeth.

Poole: Exo 21:4 - Quest // Answ

That being a true rule, and approved both by Scripture and by heathen authors, that the birth follows the belly, Gen 21:10 Gal 4:24,25 ; and he that owns the tree hath right to all its fruit.

Quest. How was this separation of man and wife agreeable with the first institution of marriage, by which that bond is made indissoluble?

Answ 1. That bond was not necessarily dissolved by this law, both because the separation was at the man’ s choice, who might have staid there if he so pleased; and because the distinction of their habitations might consist with the right and use of matrimony, which the master also would probably permit for his own advantage.

Answ 2. God might here, as well as in the case of divorces, dispense with his own laws and institutions, especially in this case, where he might design this for a punishment to the man for marrying a stranger, which was not pleasing to God, as appears from Deu 21:11 Ezr 10:2 Neh 13:23 . And that this woman was a stranger, and not a Hebrewess, is manifest, because then she also must have gone out free, Ex 21 7-9 De 15:12 .

Poole: Exo 21:6 - Shall bring him unto the judges // He shall also bring him to the door // His master shall bore his ear through with an awl // For ever

Shall bring him unto the judges partly, that it may appear he chooseth this freely, and is not overawed nor overreached by his master; and partly, that the agreement being so publicly and solemnly confirmed, might be irrevocable.

He shall also bring him to the door to wit, of his master’ s house, as it is expressed, Deu 15:17 ; a token that he was fixed there, and never to go a freeman out of these doors.

His master shall bore his ear through with an awl as a note of a servant; as it continued to be long after this in Syria and Arabia, as Juvenal and Petpontus Arbiter affirm; and it did fitly represent his settled and perpetual obligation to abide in that house, and there to hear and obey his master’ s commands. See Psa 40:6 .

For ever i.e. not only for six years more, but without any limitation of time, as long as he lives, until the jubilee, which is an exception made by God to this law, Lev 25:40 Deu 15:17 . The Hebrew word olam , here used, oft signifies not eternity, but only a long time. See Exo 12:14 .

Poole: Exo 21:7 - A man // She shall not go out as the men-servants do // Quest // Answ

A man i.e. a Hebrew, as appears by the opposition of one of a strange nation , Exo 21:8 .

For a man to

sell his daughter to be a maid-servant was allowed in case of extreme necessity, because of the hardness of their hearts.

She shall not go out as the men-servants do but upon better terms, as being one of the weaker and more helpless sex.

Quest. How doth this agree with Deu 15:17 ,

Also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise ?

Answ 1. Distinguish persons. She, Deu 15:17 was sold by herself, and that to mere servitude; this here was sold by her father, not only for service, but in order to her marriage, as the following verses sufficiently imply.

2. Distinguish things. The likeness between men-servants and maid-servants was only in the rites used, in case she consented to perpetual servitude. The difference here is, in case they both were made free, in which case she had some privileges, which here follow.

Poole: Exo 21:8 - Who hath betrothed her to himself // Then shall he let her be redeemed // Quest // Answ // To sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power // He hath dealt deceitfully with her

Who hath betrothed her to himself for a concubine or secondary wife. Not that masters did always take maid-servants upon these terms, as some conceive; but that some did so, and of them this place speaks. Though here is a differing reading; and as the margin hath lo the pronoun, signifying to him , so the text hath lo the adverb, signifying not ; and so the text may be translated thus, so that he doth not betroth her, to wit, to himself, or to his son, as he gave her hopes he intended. Either reading or sense is proper and probable.

Then shall he let her be redeemed either by herself or friends, or any other person that will redeem her.

Quest. How could he part with her, and sell her, when she was betrothed to him?

Answ 1. This might be one of those many indulgences given to them for the hardness of their hearts; and there is no doubt God could dispense with his own positive laws.

2. The latter reading avoids this difficulty.

To sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power: this was in general prohibited for all Hebrew servants, but it is particularly mentioned here, because there was special reason for it; both because there was more danger of her corruption in chastity and religion in regard of her sex, and because the master in that case was under a greater temptation of selling her to a foreigner, because no Israelite would buy her, or give so much money for her as a heathen would, who would and might keep her for a perpetual servant, which the Israelites might not do.

He hath dealt deceitfully with her viz. in breaking his promise of marriage made to her, or blasting the hopes he encouraged her to have of it. The Hebrew words are exactly rendered thus, in dealing deceitfully or falsely with her or against her; and they may be added as an aggravation of that sin of selling her to a strange nation, wherein there was a double false dealing; the one towards God, who by his law forbad this; the other towards her, whom he hired upon other terms, and not with a power to dispose of her contrary to the law and manner of the Israelites.

Poole: Exo 21:9

i.e. Give her a convenient portion, as he doth to his own daughters, Exo 22:16 .

Poole: Exo 21:10 - Shall he not diminish

Her duty of marriage is called due benevolence , 1Co 7:3 . Or, her dwelling , as the word is oft used. So here are the three great conveniences of life, food, and raiment, and habitation, all which he is to provide for her. Or, her cohabitation , or, her time , the convenient and appointed times for conjugal converse with her; for some times were disallowed for it, Le 15 , and when there were plurality of wives, they had their vicissitudes, Gen 30:15,16 .

Shall he not diminish or rather, not withdraw , or deny it, as the word signifies, and as the LXX., Chaldee, Samaritan, Vulgate, and others render it,

Poole: Exo 21:11

And with gifts also by virtue of the law, Deu 15:14 . The sum is this, The master was either,

1. Willing to part with her; and then he was to let her be redeemed by herself, or any of her friends, but not by a heathen, Exo 21:8 . Or,

2. Willing to keep her; and then, as he had betrothed her, he was to perform all the duties of a husband to her, although he had another wife besides her, Exo 21:10 .

3. If he would keep her, and yet deny those duties to her, then as his fault was aggravated, so was his punishment; for now he cannot sell her, but must let her go freely, as in this verse.

Poole: Exo 21:12 - He that smiteth a man

He that smiteth a man knowingly and wilfully, as appears by the next verse, neither the friends of the party slain, nor the magistrate, shall give him a pardon, or accept a ransom for him, Num 35:31 .

Poole: Exo 21:13 - A place whither he shall flee

If it appear that the manslayer did not intend nor desire it, but only it fell out by his heedlessness, or by some casualty, or by some unexpected providence; or, God, and not man, God without the man’ s contrivance or design; for otherwise, in a general sense and way, God delivered Christ into the hands of Judas and the Jews, who did advisedly and maliciously kill him.

A place whither he shall flee i.e. a city or place of refuge, Num 35:11 Deu 19:5 .

Poole: Exo 21:14 - If a man come presumptuously // From mine altar

If a man come presumptuously i.e. do this proudly, boldly, purposely, and maliciously; for so the word signifies.

From mine altar which not only in the wilderness, but afterward, seems to have been esteemed a place of refuge, 1Ki 1:50 , as it also was among the heathens: but God so far abhors murder, that he will rather venture the pollution of his own altar than the escape of the murderer. See 2Ki 11:15 .

Poole: Exo 21:15 - He that smiteth

He that smiteth either,

1. So as is before mentioned, Exo 21:12 , so as they die . And to smite sometimes signifies to kill , as Gen 4:15 2Ki 14:5 , compared with 2Ch 25:3 . And this may be here added by way of distinction: q.d. That killing of another man which is punished with death, must be done presumptuously; but the killing of parents, though not done presumptuously, is a capital crime. Or,

2. The mere smiting of them, to wit, wilfully and dangerously. Nor will any think this law too severe, that considers that this is an act full of horrid impiety against God, who hath so expressly and emphatically commanded children to honour their parents; of highest and most unnatural ingratitude, and utterly destructive to human society.

Poole: Exo 21:16

i.e. In the manstealer’ s hand; q.d. though he keep him in his own hands for his own use; for still it is a theft, and he is made that man’ s slave, and it is in his power to sell him to another when he pleaseth, and therefore deserves death.

Poole: Exo 21:17

Or, revileth , to wit, wilfully, maliciously, obstinately, against all admonition, by comparing Deu 21:18 .

Poole: Exo 21:18 - With a stone

With a stone or any other instrument fit for such a mischievous purpose. A usual synecdoche.

Poole: Exo 21:19 - The loss of his time // Cause him to be thoroughly healed

The loss of his time i.e. of the profit which he could or commonly did make of his time in the way of his calling.

Cause him to be thoroughly healed i.e. pay the charges of the cure.

Poole: Exo 21:20 - His servant // With a rod // Under his hand // He shall be surely punished

His servant namely, a stranger; for an Israelite was to be better used. See Lev 25:39,40 , &c.

With a rod a fit and usual instrument for correction, whereby it is implied, that if he killed him with a sword, or any such weapon, he was to die for it.

Under his hand i.e. whilst the master is correcting him.

He shall be surely punished not with death, for then it would have been said so, as it is before and after; but as the magistrate or judge shall think fit, according to the diversity of circumstances; and therefore no particular punishment is set down.

Poole: Exo 21:21

i.e. His possession bought with his money; and therefore,

1. Had a power to chastise him according to his demerit, which might be very great.

2. Is sufficiently punished with his own loss.

3. May be presumed not to have done this purposely and maliciously.

Poole: Exo 21:22 - A woman with child // No mischief follow

A woman with child to wit, the wife of the other person, who interposed herself to succour her husband.

No mischief follow neither to the woman nor child; for it is generally so as to reach both, in case the abortive had life in it.

The husband shall impose the fine, and if it be unreasonable, the judges shall have a power to moderate it.

Poole: Exo 21:23 - Any mischief

Any mischief either to the mother or to the child, whether it be death, or any maim or mischief.

Who

shall give life for life?

Answ . Not the private person, which would have introduced infinite mischiefs and confusions, but the magistrate; for these laws are given to Moses, and the execution of these things was committed to Moses, and others under him.

Poole: Exo 21:24

This is called the law of retaliation, and from hence the heathen lawgivers took it and put it into their laws. But though this might sometimes be practised in the letter, yet it was not necessarily to be understood and executed so; as may appear,

1. By the impossibility of the just execution of it in many cases, as when a man that had but one eye or hand was to lose the other, which to him was a far greater mischief than what he did to his neighbour, whom he deprived but of one of his eyes or hands. And this is a sure and righteous rule, Punishments may be less, but never should be greater than the fault. And how could a wound be made neither bigger nor less than that which he inflicted?

2. By comparing this with other laws, wherein a compensation is allowed in like cases, as Exo 21:18,30 . And when it is enjoined that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a wilful murderer , Num 35:31 , it seems therein implied that satisfaction may be taken for lesser injuries. And indeed the payment of such a price as the loss of an eye, or hand, or foot required, though it might not so much satisfy the revenge of the party so injured, yet it was really more to his benefit. This law therefore was only minatory, but so as it was literally to be inflicted, except the injuring party would give such satisfaction as the injured person accepted, or the judges determined.

Poole: Exo 21:27

Some confine this to the Israelitish servants, but the text doth not so limit it; and the reason of the law seems to reach to Gentile servants, this being a just punishment to unmerciful masters, (who ought to be merciful to their beasts, much more to such servants,) and a fit recompence to a servant for such a loss. And this law reacheth the loss of any other member, these two being instanced in, the one as the chief, and the other as the meanest, to intimate that other parts of a like or middle nature are included.

Poole: Exo 21:28 - Ox shall be stoned // His flesh shall not be eaten

Under which you are to understand any other creatures of like nature which hurt a man in such a dangerous manner, whether with their horns, or teeth, or feet; but he mentions only the ox or bull, and his goring with his horn, because this is most frequently done.

Ox shall be stoned partly, to prevent future mischiefs from that creature; partly, to punish its master for his negligence in not keeping it in; and principally, for man’ s admonition, for whom seeing the beasts were made, it is not strange nor unjust if it be destroyed for man’ s good. God would hereby show that he would not, and men should not, spare a wilful murderer.

His flesh shall not be eaten both because it was forbidden food, its blood being not let out; and for the punishment of the owner, who was hereby hindered from the sale of it, to beget in all the greater detestation of murderers, when they observe the poor beast upon this account accursed, and therefore not to be touched or tasted.

Poole: Exo 21:29 - It hath been testified // A man or a woman

It hath been testified which the Jews say was to be done thrice, and before the magistrate.

A man or a woman to wit, an Israelite, or a stranger who is free, by comparing this with Exo 21:32 .

Poole: Exo 21:30 - If there be laid on him

If there be laid on him either by the avenger of blood, the next akin to the party slain, who is willing to exchange the punishment; or by the judge, who may discern some circumstances which may much lessen the crime, as if an ox had broken his cords wherewith he was tied, or broke forth through the carelessness or wickedness of his servant to whose care he was committed.

Poole: Exo 21:31 - A son or a daughter

A son or a daughter names signifying their tender age, in respect of the man or woman , Exo 21:29 . And this is added, lest the foregoing sense should be restrained to their parents, whose lives were more precious, and therefore their loss greater.

Poole: Exo 21:32

The half the freeman’ s price . See Poole on "Mat 26:5" .

Poole: Exo 21:33 - open // dig // pit

If a man shall either

open an old pit which hath been covered with earth; or

dig a new

pit to wit, in a public way, as the reason of the law shows; for if it were done in a man’ s own house or ground, there was no danger of such an accident, except the beast transgressed his bounds, and then the man was not culpable.

Poole: Exo 21:34 - The owner of the pit

The owner of the pit i.e. he by whose hand or command it was made,

shall give money equal to the worth of the dead beast, in the opinion of the judge.

Poole: Exo 21:35 - They shall divide the money

They shall divide the money not equally, for so the owner of the mischievous ox might be gainer by the mischief, his ox being much worse than that which was killed; but in such proportions as the judges shall think fit, considering the worth of the cattle, and the circumstances of the action.

Poole: Exo 21:36 - Ox for ox

Ox for ox an ox of equal value with that slain ox, or the price and worth of it.

Haydock: Exo 21:1 - Judgments

Judgments, or laws directing the civil conduct of the Israelites. (Menochius)

Haydock: Exo 21:2 - Servant // Six years

Servant, or slave. A man might sell himself and his children. But if they were females, under age, God prescribes how they are to be treated, ver. 7. ---

Six years: in case he were brought immediately after the expiration of the Sabbatic law: none could be detained for a longer period. If a person lost his liberty in the fourth year after the general release, he would recover it in the space of two or three years at latest. (Haydock) (Bonfrere)

Haydock: Exo 21:3 - Raiment

Raiment. Hebrew Gaph may signify also the body. "If he come (with his body) alone, let him so depart," Septuagint. (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 21:6 - To the gods // Posts // For ever

To the gods: Elohim. That is, to the judges, or magistrates, authorized by God. (Challoner) ---

In a matter of such consequence, great deliberation was requisite. ---

Posts, of his own house. This ceremony tended to punish the slave for neglecting his liberty, and shewed, that he should not pass the threshold any more without his master's leave. ---

For ever; till the year of Jubilee, when all the Hebrews were to be set free, Leviticus xxv. 40. (Menochius)

Haydock: Exo 21:7 - Go out

Go out, to work in the fields, according to Grotius; or rather, to enjoy her liberty. A father who sold his daughter, always expected that she should be the wife of the purchaser, or of his son. If this did not take place, she was free after six years, or before, if her master died. Constantine sanctioned the power of the Romans to sell their children. The Phrygians and Thebans had the like custom. (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 21:9 - Daughters

Daughters. When she is old enough to be married, he shall give her a dowry like his own daughter, or like a free woman. (Haydock)

Haydock: Exo 21:10 - Marriage // Price

Marriage. This seems to insinuate that she was divorced: but the best commentators suppose, that the introduction of the second wife was not to infringe the rights of the first. Hebrew, "he shall not diminish her food, raiment, and dwelling," but treat her as his wife. The Athenians required husbands to visit their wives thrice a month. ---

Price, &c. A sufficient dowry, or the rights of marriage; "her company," (omilian.) Septuagint.

Haydock: Exo 21:12 - With a will // Death

With a will. The Hebrew and Septuagint do not express this, but the context shews it to be necessary. ---

Death, by the sword, as people soliciting idolatry to others were also. Eighteen crimes were punished with lapidation, ten with fire, or melting lead poured down their throats, and six with strangling. The royal tribunals always commanded the criminal's head to be struck off. (Calmet) ---

When the punishment is not defined, stoning must be understood; (Rabbins and Selden, Syned ii. 13.) at least when it is said, his blood be upon him. But when it is only determined that he shall die, Grotius understands he must be strangled, with towels put round the malefactor's neck, while he stands up to the knees in a dunghill; (Drusius) as he does also when he is to be killed with melted lead. Murder was punished by the ancient Greeks with exile. (Plato, &c.) "At that time it was deemed unlawful to inflict a capital punishment upon any, who, however criminal, were still men." (Lartant 2.) But as these crimes became more frequent, God enacts this law of retaliation, blood for blood, Genesis ix. 6. Ten paces from the place of execution, the criminal Hebrew had to confess his sin. (Maimonides) (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 21:13 - God

God. When a person was slain undesignedly, the Providence of God was to be adored in silence, as nothing happens without his permission. (Haydock) See Numbers xxv. 6.

Haydock: Exo 21:14 - Altar

Altar, if he should flee thither for safety. No asylum was allowed to such murderers. Thus Joab was slain by Solomon, 3 Kings ii. 31. (Menochius)

Haydock: Exo 21:15 - Striketh

Striketh, even though death should not ensue. But some require a grevious wound, and that the son should be twice admonished, Deuteronomy xxi. 18. Parricide seemed a crime so shocking and unnatural, that neither Moses nor Solon made any express law against it.

Haydock: Exo 21:17 - Curseth

Curseth, or speaking injuriously. The Athenians put such in prison.

Haydock: Exo 21:19 - Staff

Staff, as people in health do, or even as a convalescent. In the mean time the other person was confined, and subjected to the law of retaliation, if the sick man lost either limb or life, ver. 24. (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 21:21 - Money

Money, which purchased the slave. Hence, as he will be punished in some degree, and it is not absolutely certain that the slave died of his wounds, his master shall not be put to death. "They are slaves, (says Seneca, ep. 47,) but they are our fellow-slaves. " We have one common origin, and one master over us all, Job xxxi. 13. (Haydock) ---

Many nations tolerated the murder of slaves by their masters. But this was contrary to reason and humanity, (Calmet) and condemned by many of the Roman laws. (Christen.)

Haydock: Exo 21:22 - But live herself // Homicidii festinatio est prohibere nasci

But live herself. So Josephus also reads, Antiquities iv. 8. But Philo and the Septuagint have, "of a child unformed;" and ver. 23, "But if the child be formed, ( exeikonismenon, animated and organized) he shall give soul for soul;" as if all were referred to the child, which the Vulgate explains of the mother. To destroy the life of either was punished with death. "She who first taught the art of expelling the tender fœtus, deserved to perish by his own malice." (Ovid) (Calmet) ---

The precise time when the soul begins to animate the body is so very uncertain, that, after conception, the person who should cause a miscarriage wilfully, would expose himself to incur the guilt of murder. Josephus, contra Apion ii., shews how the Jews abhorred such wickedness. The Romans punished it with death. (Haydock) ---

Homicidii festinatio est prohibere nasci. (Tertullian, apol.) Onkelos says, that "if the mother should not die of the stroke, the offender was to satisfy the husband by paying a fine, to be awarded by the husband, or by the judges: but in case the mother died, he should render life for life:" (Calmet) in which decision he agrees with the Vulgate. (Haydock) ---

The Hebrew is ambiguous, "If death ensue not." (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 21:24 - Eye

Eye. "This law tended to restrain, not to encourage, fury and revenge." (St. Augustine, contra Faust. xix. 25.) Some explain it, as if a sum of money could only be required, equivalent to the ransom of an eye, in case a person should be under a necessity of losing or of redeeming it. (Muis; Jonathan) ---

Retaliation was not left to the injured party's discretion. The judge was to decide. Christ enjoins what is more perfect, ordering us to turn the left cheek, when we have received a blow on the right. The canon law inflicts the punishment of retaliation upon the calumniator. (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 21:28 - Stoned

Stoned, that he may do no more harm, and that the owner may be punished at least by this loss. (Haydock) ---

Sentence was passed by the 23 judges. By the Roman law, the animal which struck a man was forfeited to him (Calmet); and its master had to make good all damages. ( Justinian iv. 9.)

Haydock: Exo 21:32 - Bond man // Sicles

Bond man, &c., of any of those uncircumcised nations, (Jonathan) whom it was lawful to put to death; and hence their life was esteemed of less value. (Haydock) ---

Sicles. Septuagint, "didrachmas." This was the price of a slave, for which our Saviour was sold: that of a free-man was double. (Calmet)

Gill: Exo 21:1 - Now these are the judgments // which thou shall set before them

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.

Gill: Exo 21:2 - If thou buy an Hebrew servant // six years he shall serve // and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing

If thou buy an Hebrew servant,.... Who sells himself either through poverty, or rather is sold because of his theft, see Exo 22:3 and so the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it,"when ye shall buy for his theft, a servant, a son of an Israelite;''agreeably to which Aben Ezra observes, this servant is a servant that is sold for his theft; and he says, it is a tradition with them, that a male is sold for his theft, but not a female; and the persons who had the selling of such were the civil magistrates, the Sanhedrim, or court of judicature; so Jarchi, on the text, says, "if thou buy", &c. that is, of the hand of the sanhedrim who sells him for his theft:

six years he shall serve; and no longer; and the Jewish doctors say ^d, if his master dies within the six years he must serve his son, but not his daughter, nor his brother, nor any other heirs:

and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing; without paying any money for his freedom, as it is explained Exo 21:11, nay, on the other hand, his master was not to send him away empty, but furnish him liberally out of his flock, floor, and wine press, since his six years' servitude was worth double that of an hired servant, Deu 15:13, and his freedom was to take place as soon as the six years were ended, and the seventh began, in which the Jewish writers agree: the Targum of Jonathan is, at the entrance of the seventh; and Aben Ezra's explanation is, at the beginning of the seventh year of his being sold; and Maimonides ^e observes the same. Now as this servant, in the state of servitude, was an emblem of that state of bondage to sin, Satan, and the law, which man is brought into by his theft, his robbing God of his glory by the transgression of his precepts; so likewise, in his being made free, he was an emblem of that liberty wherewith Christ, the Son of God, makes his people free from the said bondage, and who are free indeed, and made so freely without money, and without price, of pure free grace, without any merit or desert of theirs; and which freedom is attended with many bountiful and liberal blessings of grace.

Gill: Exo 21:3 - If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself // if he were married, then his wife shall go with him

If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself,.... That is, if he came into his servitude "alone", as the Septuagint version has it, he should go out of it in like manner; the word for "by himself", some interpret with "his garment" ^f, or the skirt of one; and then the sense seems to be, that as he was clothed when he was sold, so he should be when made free: but rather the phrase literally is "with his body" ^g; not his naked body, or as destitute of raiment, and the necessaries of life; for, as before observed, his master was to furnish him liberally with good things: but the plain meaning is, that if he was a single or unmarried man when he entered his master's service, he should go out, so; or as a Jewish writer ^h expresses it, as if he should say, with his body, without another body with him, who is his wife, as appears by what follows; unless his master should give him a wife while in his service, which is supposed in the next verse, and even then he was to go out alone, if he chose to go out at all; though Jarchi says, if he was not married at first, his master might not give him a Canaanitish woman to beget slaves of her:

if he were married, then his wife shall go with him; that is, if he had a wife, a daughter of Israel, as the Targum of Jonathan; or an Israelitish woman, as Jarchi, and had her at his coming; for otherwise, if it was one his master after gave him, she might not go out, as appears by the following verse; but being his wife before his servitude, and an Israelitish woman, was not the master's bondmaid, nor bought with his money, and therefore might go out free with her husband.

Gill: Exo 21:4 - If his master have given him a wife // and she have born him sons or daughters // the wife and her children shall be her master's // and he shall go out by himself

If his master have given him a wife,.... One of his slaves, a Canaanitish woman, on purpose to beget slaves on her, since all born in his house were his own; this is supposed to be after he was come into his house, and into his service:

and she have born him sons or daughters; as she might have born him several of the one sort, or the other, if she was given to him quickly after his servitude began:

the wife and her children shall be her master's: she being his slave, and bought with his money, he had a right unto her, and to the children belonging to her, the birth following the belly; and being born in his house, they were also his. Jarchi here observes, that the Scripture speaks of a Canaanitish woman, for an Hebrew woman went out at the sixth year, and even before the sixth, if she produced the signs, that is, of puberty:

and he shall go out by himself; without his wife and children: if it be objected to this law, that it is contrary to the law of marriage, which is indissoluble, but by this dissolved; it may be replied, that the servant was not obliged by it to leave his wife, unless he chose it; on complying with certain conditions after mentioned, he might continue with her; besides, she was, according to Jarchi, but his secondary wife, and not only so, the marriage was not lawful, being with a Canaanitish woman, and not agreeable to the Lord; and being also her master's slave, to whom he had a right, he could retain her if he pleased, having only given her to his servant to beget slaves on for him.

Gill: Exo 21:5 - And if the servant shall plainly say // I love my master, my wife, and my children, and I will not go out free // it is, because he loveth thee, and thine house, because he is well with thee

And if the servant shall plainly say,.... Or, "in saying shall say" ⁱ shall express himself in plain and full terms, and repeat his words, and abide by them, signifying it as his last will and determined resolution:

I love my master, my wife, and my children, and I will not go out free; but continue in his servitude, having a great affection for his master, and that he might enjoy his wife and children he dearly loved; and being animated with such a principle, his servitude was a pleasure to him: and when our obedience to God springs from love to him, and to his cause and interest, which should be as dear to us as our families, it is then acceptable to God and delightful to ourselves; in Deu 15:16,

it is, because he loveth thee, and thine house, because he is well with thee; hence the Jewish writers say ^k, understanding by "house" a family, if a servant has a wife and children and his master not, his ear is not to be bored; and if his master has a wife and children and he has not, his ear is not to be bored; if he loves his master and his master do not love him, or his master loves him and he do not love his master, or if he is sick, &c. his ear is not to be bored.

Gill: Exo 21:6 - Then his master shall bring him unto the judges // he shall also 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 for ever

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges,.... To Elohim, to God, to the judgment seat of God, according to the Septuagint; to some person or persons to inquire of God what is to be done in such a case; but this seems needless, since it is here declared: no doubt civil magistrates or judges are meant by Elohim, or the gods, as in Psa 82:1, and so Jarchi interprets it of the house of judgment, or sanhedrim, the court that had convicted the servant of theft, and had sold him to him, it was proper he should acquaint them with it, have their opinion about it; and especially it was proper to have him to them, that he might before them, even in open court, declare his willingness to abide in his master's service; and from whom, as the Targum of Jonathan, he was to receive power and authority to retain him in his service:

he shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost; either of the gate of the city, where the judges were sitting, before whom what follows was to be done, as Aben Ezra suggests; or rather the door of his master, or any other man's, as Maimonides ^l:

and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; or with a needle, as the Targum of Jonathan, which also says it was the right ear; and so Jarchi; and the upper part of it, as says Maimonides, who likewise observes, that that with which it is bored must be of metal; and moreover, that it is the master himself that must do it, and not his son, nor his messenger, nor a messenger of the sanhedrim ^m: the ear is an hieroglyphic of obedience, and the boring of it through to the doorpost denotes the strict and close obedience of such a servant to his master, and how he is, and ought to be, addicted to his service, and be constantly employed in it, and never stir from it, nor so much as go over the threshold of his master's house. This custom of boring a servant's ear continued in Syria till the times of Juvenal, as appears by some lines of his: ⁿ.

and he shall serve him for ever; as long as he lives ^o; however, until the year of jubilee, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi; if there was one before his death, for nothing else could free him; denoting freedom by Christ in his acceptable year, and day of salvation.

Gill: Exo 21:7 - And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant // she shall not go out as the menservants do

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant,.... That is, if an Israelite, as the Targum of Jonathan, sells his little daughter, as the same Targum, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra, one that is under age, that is not arrived to the age of twelve years and a day, and this through poverty; he not being able to support himself and his family, puts his daughter out to service, or rather sells her to be a servant:

she shall not go out as the menservants do; that are sold, before described; or rather, according to the Targum,"as the Canaanitish servants go out, who are made free, because of a tooth, or an eye, (the loss of them, Exo 21:26) but in the years of release, and with the signs (of puberty), and in the jubilee, and at the death of their masters, with redemption of silver,''so Jarchi.

Gill: Exo 21:8 - If she please not her master // who hath betrothed her to him // then shall he let her be redeemed // to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall // seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her

If she please not her master,.... "Be evil in the eyes of her master" ^p; and he has no liking of her, and love to her, not being agreeable in her person, temper, or conduct, so that he does not choose to make her his wife:

who hath betrothed her to him; but not completed the marriage, as he promised, when he bought her, or at least gave reason to expect that he would; for, according to the Jewish canons, a Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under obligation to espouse her to himself, or his son, when she was fit to be betrothed ^q; and so Jarchi says, he ought to espouse her, and take her to be his wife, for the money of her purchase is the money of her espousals. There is a double reading of this passage, the Keri, or marginal reading we follow; the Cetib, or written text, is, "who hath not betrothed her", both may be taken in, "who hath not betrothed her to him", as he said he would, or as it was expected he should; for, had she been really betrothed, what follows could not have been done:

then shall he let her be redeemed; she being at age, and fit for marriage, and her master not caring to marry her, her father shall redeem her, as the Targum of Jonathan; it was incumbent on him to do that, as it was on her master to let her be redeemed, to admit of the redemption of her; or whether, as Aben Ezra says, she redeemed herself, or her father, or one of her relations, if she was near the six years (the end of them), they reckoned how many years she had served, and how many were yet to the seventh, or to the time that she is in her own power, and according to the computation was the redemption: thus, for instance, as it is by others ^r put, if she was bought for six pounds, then one pound is the service of every year; and if she redeemed herself, her master took off of the money for the years she had served; or thus ^s, if she was bought for sixty pence, and had served two years, he must pay her forty pence, and so free her:

to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power; that is, to another man, as both the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, even to an Israelite that was of another family, to whom the right of redemption did not belong; for to sell an Israelite, man or woman, to a Gentile, or one of another nation, was not allowed of in any case, as Josephus ^t observes; but the meaning is, he had no power to sell her to another, though of the same nation, to be his handmaid; this power neither her master nor her father had, as Jarchi asserts, she being redeemed, and in her own power:

seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her; in not fulfilling his promise made to her father when he sold her to him, or not answering the expectation he had raised in her; and especially he dealt thus with her, if he had corrupted her, and yet refused to betroth and marry her.

Gill: Exo 21:9 - And if he have betrothed her unto his son // he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters

And if he have betrothed her unto his son,.... Not caring to betroth and marry her himself, as being more suitable in age for his son than for himself:

he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters; as if she was his daughter, and give her a dowry: or the son shall treat her after the manner the daughters of Israel are treated when married, by giving her food, raiment, and the duty of marriage, so Jarchi: or after the manner of the daughters of Israel that are virgins, and who are not sold, as Aben Ezra.

Gill: Exo 21:10 - If he take him another wife // her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish

If he take him another wife,.... The father takes another wife for his son, or the son takes another wife to himself after he has betrothed and married his father's maidservant:

her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish; neither deny it her in whole, nor lessen it in part, but give her her full due of each. What is meant by the two former words is easy, and admits of no difficulty, the latter is differently interpreted. Some take it to signify no other than an "habitation" ^u, that as he was to provide food and raiment for her, so an house to dwell, in; but the generality of interpreters, Jewish and Christian, understand it as we do, of the conjugal duty, the use of the marriage bed, or what the apostle calls due benevolence, 1Co 7:3. The word is thought to have the signification of a fixed time for it; and the Misnic doctors ^w are very particular in assigning the set times of it for different persons; and in those countries where there were, and where there still are, plurality of wives, each had, and have their turns, see Gen 30:15.

Gill: Exo 21:11 - And if he do not these three unto her // then shall she go out free without money

And if he do not these three unto her,.... Not the three things last mentioned; though this sense, Aben Ezra says, many of their interpreters give, which is rejected by him, so do some Christian expositors; but these three things are, espousing her to himself, or to his son, or redeeming her by the hand of her father; that is, letting her be redeemed by him, as the Targum of Jonathan; and so Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Ben Melech: the meaning is, if one or other of these things are not done:

then shall she go out free without money; be dismissed from her servitude, and not obliged to pay anything for her freedom; the Targum of Jonathan adds, he shall give her a bill of divorce; that is, the son to whom she had been betrothed, and another wife taken by him, and she denied the above things; which favours the first sense.

Gill: Exo 21:12 - He that smiteth a man, so that he die // shall surely be put to death

He that smiteth a man, so that he die,.... The Targum of Jonathan is, that smites a man or daughter of Israel with the sword; but there is no need to restrain the words either to persons of any certain nation, nor to any instrument with which a person may be smitten as to die: but any human person, man, woman, or child, of whatsoever nation, and they smitten with anything whatever, that issues in their death:

shall surely be put to death; by the order of the civil magistrate, and by the hand of such as shall be appointed by him; for this is the original law of God, Gen 9:6.

Gill: Exo 21:13 - And if a man lie not in wait // but God delivers him into his hand // then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee

And if a man lie not in wait,.... For the life of another to take it away; or does not do it willingly, as the Septuagint version, does not seek after it, nor design it:

but God delivers him into his hand; it being suffered and ordered by the providence of God, without whose knowledge and will nothing comes to pass, even what may seem to be a contingent thing, or matter of chance, to us; or it is so brought about in providence, that one man falls into the hands of another, and his life is taken away by him, though not purposely and maliciously; because, as Aben Ezra expresses it, for another sin which he has committed, and for which he must die in this way, though not intended by the person the more immediate cause of his death:

then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee; and there be safe both from the avenger of blood, and the civil magistrate; which place, while Israel were in the wilderness, was the camp of the Levites, according to Jarchi, or the altar, as follows; but when they were come to Canaan's land, there were cities of refuge appointed for such persons, that killed a man unawares, to flee to, and where they were safe from private vengeance, and falling a sacrifice to public justice.

Gill: Exo 21:14 - But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile // thou shalt take him from mine altar

But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile,.... That comes with malice in his heart, with wrath in his countenance, in a bold, daring, hostile manner, using all the art, cunning, and contrivance he can, to take away the life of his neighbour; no asylum, no refuge, not anything to screen him from justice is to be allowed him: hence, a messenger of the sanhedrim, or an executioner, one that inflicts the forty stripes, save one, or a physician, or one that chastises his son or scholar, under whose hands persons may die, do not come under this law; for though what they do they may do wilfully, yet not with guile, as Jarchi and others observe, not with an ill design, but for good:

thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die: that being the place which in early times criminals had recourse unto, Joab and others, as well as in later times, to secure them from vengeance; but a man guilty of wilful murder was not to be protected in this way; and the Targum of Jonathan is,"though he is a priest, (the Jerusalem Targum has it, an high priest,) and ministers at mine altar, thou shalt take him from thence, and slay him with the sword,''so Jarchi; but the law refers not to a person ministering in his office at the altar of the Lord, but to one that should flee there for safety, which yet he should not have.

Gill: Exo 21:15 - And he that smiteth his father or his mother // shall be surely put to death

And he that smiteth his father or his mother,.... With his fist, or with a stick, or cane, or such thing, though they died not with the blow, yet it occasioned any wound, or caused a bruise, or the part smitten black and blue, or left any print of the blow; for, as Jarchi says, the party was not guilty, less by smiting there was a bruise, or weal, made, or any mark or scar: but if so it was, then he

shall be surely put to death; the Targum of Jonathan adds, with the suffocation of a napkin; and so Jarchi says with strangling; the manner of which was this, the person was sunk into a dunghill up to his knees, and two persons girt his neck with a napkin or towel until he expired. This crime was made capital, to show the heinousness of it, how detestable it was to God, and in order to deter from it.

Gill: Exo 21:16 - And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him // or if he be found in his hand // he shall surely be put to death

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him,.... One of the children of Israel, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and so the Septuagint version: but though this law was given to the Israelites primarily, yet was made for men stealers in general, as the apostle observes, who plainly has reference to it, 1Ti 1:9,

or if he be found in his hand; before the selling of him, as Jarchi notes, since he stole him in order to sell him, he was guilty of death, as follows:

he shall surely be put to death; with strangling, as the same Jewish writer remarks, as on the preceding verse; and Jarchi sets it down as a rule, that all death in the law, simply expressed, is strangling.

Gill: Exo 21:17 - And he that curseth his father, or his mother // shall surely be put to death

And he that curseth his father, or his mother,.... Though he does not smite them with his hand, or with any instrument in it, yet if he smites them with his tongue, reviles and reproaches them, speaks evil of them, wishes dreadful imprecations upon them, curses them by the name explained, as the Targum of Jonathan calls it, by the name Jehovah, wishing the Lord would curse them, or that his curse might light upon them, see Pro 20:20,

shall surely be put to death; or be killed with casting stones on him, as the Targum of Jonathan, or with stoning; so Jarchi, who observes, that wherever it is said, "his blood be upon him", it is meant of stoning, as it is of the man that curses his father or his mother, Lev 20:9 which was after this manner, the place of stoning was two cubits high, to which the malefactor with his hands bound was brought; from whence one of the witnesses against him cast him down headlong, of which, if he did not die, then they took up stones and cast on him, and if he died not through them, then all Israel came and stoned him; that is, the multitude upon the spot: this verse in the Septuagint version follows Exo 21:15, with which it agrees, both respecting the same persons.

Gill: Exo 21:18 - And if men strive together // and one smite another with a stone // or with his fist // and he die not, but keepeth his bed

And if men strive together,.... Quarrel and fight, and wrestle with and box one another:

and one smite another with a stone; which lying near him he might take up, and in his passion throw it at his antagonist:

or with his fist; with his double fist, as we express it, with his hand closed, that it might come with the greater force, and give the greater blow:

and he die not, but keepeth his bed; does not die with the blow of the stone or fist, yet receives so much damage by it that he is obliged to take to his bed; or, as the Targum of Jerusalem paraphrases it, is cast on the bed sick; or, as the Targum of Jonathan, falls into a disease, as a fever, or the like, through the force of the blow, so that he is confined to his room and to his bed.

Gill: Exo 21:19 - If he rise again // and walk abroad upon his staff // then shall he that smote him be quit // only shall he pay for the loss of his time // and cause him to be thoroughly healed

If he rise again,.... From his bed, or from his disease, as the last mentioned Targum, recovers again, at least so far as to be able to do what follows:

and walk abroad upon his staff; if he is able to get out of his bed, and especially out of his house, and can be seen walking about in the street or in the field, though he is obliged to make use of a staff, and lean upon it, being yet weak and sickly:

then shall he that smote him be quit; from the judgment of slaying, as the Targum, he shall not be charged with manslaughter, or be found guilty of a capital crime, but discharged from that:

only shall he pay for the loss of his time; as much as he could have got in that time by his labour, from which he was obliged to cease: the Jewish writers add other things also he was to pay for, as the Targum of Jonathan, particularly; as for his pain, and for his loss of any member, and for his shame and disgrace, as well as the physician's fee, which is supposed to be included in the next clause:

and cause him to be thoroughly healed; take care that he has a physician or surgeon, and that the proper medicines be applied, and those continued until he is quite well; all which must be at the expense of the smiter.

Gill: Exo 21:20 - And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod // and he die under his hand // he shall be surely punished

And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod,.... A Canaanitish servant or maid, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi; and that only with a rod for the correction of them, and not with a sword or any such destroying weapon, which would seem as though he intended to kill, yet nevertheless:

and he die under his hand; immediately, while he is smiting or beating him or her, on the same day, as the above Targum interprets it:

he shall be surely punished; or condemned to the punishment of being slain with the sword, as the said Targum and Jarchi explain it: this law was made to deter masters from using severity and cruelty towards their servants.

Gill: Exo 21:21 - Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two // he shall not be punished // for he is his money

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two,.... And does not die immediately, or the same day, but lives twenty four hours, as the Jewish writers interpret it; so Abendana ^x explains the phrase, "a day or two";"a day which is as two days, and they are twenty four hours from time to time,''that is, from the time he was smitten to the time of his continuance; and so it is elsewhere explained ^y by a day we understand a day, which is like two days, that is, from time to time, the meaning of which is, from a certain time in one day to the same in another:

he shall not be punished; that is, with death:

for he is his money; is bought with his money, and is good as money, and therefore it is a loss sufficient to him to lose him; and it may be reasonably thought he did not smite his servant with an intention to kill him, since he himself is the loser by it.

Gill: Exo 21:22 - If men strive // and hurt a woman with child // so that her fruit depart from her // and yet no mischief follow // he shall surely be punished // according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine

If men strive,.... Quarrel and fight with one another, which is to be understood of Hebrews, as Aben Ezra observes:

and hurt a woman with child; who being the wife of one of them, and also an Israelitish woman, interposes to part them, or help her husband; but the other, instead of striking his antagonist as he intended, gives her a blow:

so that her fruit depart from her; or, "her children go forth" ^z, out of her womb, as she may have more than one; through the fright of the quarrel, and fear of her husband being hurt, and the blow she received by interposing, might miscarry, or, falling into labour, come before her time, and bring forth her offspring sooner than expected:

and yet no mischief follow: to her, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra restrain it to the woman; and which mischief they interpret of death, as does also the Targum of Onkelos; but it may refer both to the woman and her offspring, and not only to the death of them, but to any hurt or damage to either of them: now though there was none of any sort:

he shall surely be punished; that is, be fined or mulcted for striking the woman, and hastening the childbirth:

according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine; the husband might propose what fine should be paid, and might ask it in court; and if the smiter agreed to it, well and good, but if he judged it an exorbitant demand, he might appeal to the judges; for the husband might not lay what fine he pleased: this, if disputed, was to be decided by the judges, and as they determined it, it was paid; of which Maimonides ^a gives this account:"he that strikes a woman, and her fruit depart, though he did not intend it, is obliged to pay the price of the birth to the husband, and for hurt and pain to the woman; how do they estimate the price of the birth? they consider the woman how well she was before she brought forth, and how well she is after she has brought forth, and they give it to the husband; if the husband be dead, they give it to the heirs; if she is stricken after the death of her husband, they give the price of the birth to the woman.''

Gill: Exo 21:23 - And if any mischief follow // then thou shalt give life for life

And if any mischief follow,.... According as that is, so shall it be done to the smiter: if death follows:

then thou shalt give life for life; if death to the woman, so Jarchi and Aben Ezra interpret it; to which agrees the Targum of Jonathan,"but if there is death in her, then ye shall judge or condemn the life of the murderer for the life of the woman;''about which, Jarchi says, there is a difference among their doctors; some say life properly, absolutely the person himself; others say money, but not life properly; for he that intends to kill one and kills another is acquitted from death, but must pay to the heirs the price (of the person killed) as that person might be sold for in the market: and indeed it seems hard that a person that kills another at unawares should die for it; it is more reasonable that the punishment should in such a case be commuted for something less than life; and that though no satisfaction was to be taken for a wilful murderer, Num 35:31, yet it seems to imply that it might be taken for one that was so without design; as by another law cities of refuge are appointed for the manslayer at unawares: the canons of the Jews, according to Maimonides ^b, run thus;"he that strikes a woman, and she miscarries and dies, although it is done ignorantly; lo, such an one is free from payment, and he does not pay anything, as it is said, "if there is no mischief, &c." the Scripture does not distinguish between what is done ignorantly and presumptuously, in a thing in which there is not death by the sanhedrim, to free him from payment; in what things? when he intends the woman; but if he intends his neighbour and strikes the woman, though she dies, since her death is, without intention, lo, this is a thing in which there is not death by the sanhedrim, and he pays the price of the birth:''the Septuagint version interprets this, not of the woman that miscarries and dies, but of the child that becomes an abortive; if that was not formed and shaped, then only a fine was to be laid, but if it was come to its proper form and shape, and so was animated or quickened, then life was to go for life: and so, according to the Salic laws, he that killed an infant in its mother's womb was to pay 8000 pence, which made two hundred shillings; but if he was the cause of a woman's miscarriage, by blows or otherwise, if the birth was animated, according to the civil law, he was to be punished with death ^c: but one would think, where this is only accidental and not intended, such a punishment is too rigid and severe: however, neither this nor what follows were left to the will of a private person to inflict at his pleasure, but to the civil magistrate; and therefore no ways encourages private revenge, in favour of which it was applied by the Pharisees in Christ's time, whose gloss he refutes, Mat 5:38 nor are the words directed to the offender in this and the following cases, but to Moses, and so to all judges under him and in succession, who were to see these laws put in execution.

Gill: Exo 21:24 - Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. This is "lex talionis", the law of retaliation, and from whence the Heathens had theirs; but whether this is to be taken strictly and literally, or only for pecuniary mulcts, is a question; Josephus ^d understands it in the former sense, the Jewish writers generally in the latter; and so the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it;"the price of an eye for an eye, &c.''Jarchi on the place observes, that,"he that puts out his neighbour's eye must pay him the price of his eye, according to the price of a servant sold in the market, and so of all the rest; for not taking away of members strictly is meant, as our doctors here interpret it;''in a place he refers to, and to which Aben Ezra agrees; and of the difference and dispute between the Jews concerning this matter; see Gill on Mat 5:38 and indeed, though these laws of retaliation should, according to the letter of them, be attended to as far as they can; yet, in some cases, it seems necessary that they should not be strictly attended to, but some recompence made in another way, and nothing seems more agreeable than a pecuniary one: thus, for instance, this law cannot be literally executed, when one that has never an eye puts out the eye of another, as it is possible that a blind man may; or one that has no teeth may strike out the tooth of another; in such cases eye cannot be given for eye, nor tooth for tooth; and, as Saadiah Gaon ^e observes, if a man should smite the eye of his neighbour, and the third part of the sight of his eye should depart, how will he order it to strike such a stroke as that, without adding or lessening? and if a man that has but one eye, or one hand, or one foot, should damage another man in those parts, and must lose his other eye, or hand, or foot, he would be in a worse case and condition than the man he injured; since he would still have one eye, or hand, or foot; wherefore a like law of Charondas among the Thurians is complained of, since it might be the case, that a man with one eye might have that struck out, and so be utterly deprived of sight; whereas the man that struck it out, though he loses one for it, yet has another, and so not deprived of sight utterly, and therefore thought not to be sufficiently punished; and that it was most correct that he should have both his eyes put out for it: and hence Diodorus Siculus ^f reports of a one-eyed man who lost his eye, that he complained of this law to the people, and advised to have it altered: this "lex talionis" was among the Roman laws of the "twelve tables" ^g.

Gill: Exo 21:25 - Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. This is to be understood of burning a man's flesh with fire; of wounds made by any means, so that the blood is let out; and of blows, and the prints and marks of them; of stripes and weals where the blood is settled, and the part is turned black and blue: the Targum of Jonathan is, the price of the pain of burning for burning, &c. and indeed, in everyone of these cases, the law could not be well literally executed; for it would be very difficult to burn and wound and mangle a man exactly as he had done another: and as Favorinus ^h objects against the law of the twelve tables of the Romans concerning retaliation, how can a man make a wound in another exactly as long, and as broad, and as deep as that he has given? nor would he suffer a larger to be made, as it was not just it should; and to which may be added, that all constitutions are not alike, and burning and wounding and striping, especially in some parts, might prove mortal, and the person might die thereby; to them the law of retaliation would not be observed, the punishment would be exceeded; and it is much more agreeable to justice and equity that it should be lessened rather than increased; and it may be observed, the law of the twelve tables with the Romans, concerning maiming of members, only took place when the parties could not come to an agreement; and with respect to the Jewish law, Josephus ⁱ himself says, that the man that has his eye put out may receive money for it, if he is willing, which the law allows of.

Gill: Exo 21:26 - If a man smite the eye of his servant // or the eye of his maid, that it perish // he shall let him go free for his eye's sake

If a man smite the eye of his servant,.... Give him a blow on the eye in a passion, as a correction for some fault he has committed:

or the eye of his maid, that it perish; strike her on that part in like manner, so that the eye is beaten or drops out, or however loses its sight, and " is blinded", as the Septuagint version; or "corrupts" it ^k, it turns black and blue, and gathers corrupt matter, and becomes a sore eye; yet if the sight is not lost, or corrupts so as to perish, this law does not take place; the Targum of Jonathan, and to Jarchi restrain this to a Canaanitish servant or maid:

he shall let him go free for his eye's sake; or "them", as the Septuagint; his right to them as a servant was hereby forfeited, and he was obliged to give them their freedom, let the time of servitude, that was to come, be what it would. This law was made to deter masters from using their servants with cruelty, since though humanity and goodness would not restrain them from ill usage of them, their own profit and advantage by them might.

Gill: Exo 21:27 - And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth // he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake

And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth,.... Give them such a slap on the face, or a blow on the mouth, as to strike out one of their teeth; this also the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi restrain to a Canaanitish servant or maid:

he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake; both him and her, the servant and the maid; this, though of lesser consequence than the loss of an eye, was punished in the same manner with the loss of the servant man or maid, to make masters careful how they abused their servants in any degree. And though only these parts are expressed, yet Jarchi and Aben Ezra observe, that all other principal members of the body, which they reckon to be twenty four, are included, as the fingers, toes, &c.

Gill: Exo 21:28 - If an ox gore 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

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die,.... That are Israelites, of whom only Aben Ezra interprets it; but though they may be principally designed, yet not solely; for no doubt if one of another nation was gored to death by the ox of an Israelite, the same penalty would be inflicted, as follows:

then the ox shall be surely stoned; which is but an exemplification of the original law given to Noah and his sons, Gen 9:5, "at the hand of every beast will I require it"; i.e. the blood of the lives of men; which shows the care God takes of them, that even a beast must die that is the means of shedding man's blood:

and his flesh shall not be eaten; it being as an impure beast according to this sentence, as Maimonides ^l observes; and even though it might have been killed in a regular manner before it was stoned, it was not to be eaten; no, not even by Heathens, nor by dogs might it be eaten, as a dead carcass might by a proselyte of the gate, or a stranger; this might not be given nor sold to him; for, as Aben Ezra observes, all profit of them is here forbidden:

but the owner of the ox shall be quit; from punishment, as the last mentioned writer observes, from suffering death; he shall only suffer the loss of his ox: the Targum of Jonathan is,"he shall be quit from the judgment of slaughter (or condemnation of murder), and also from the price of a servant or maid,''which was thirty shekels, Exo 21:32.

Gill: Exo 21:29 - But if the ox were wont to push with his horns in time past // and it hath been testified to his owner // and he hath not kept him in // the ox shall be stoned // and his owner shall be put to death

But if the ox were wont to push with his horns in time past,.... Or "from or before yesterday, to the third" ^m that is, three days before, and had made three pushes, as Jarchi explains it:

and it hath been testified to his owner; by sufficient witnesses, who saw him push at people for three days past: the Targum of Jonathan is,"and it hath been testified to the face of his owner three days.''Concerning this testimony Maimonides ⁿ thus writes,"this is a testification, all that testify of it three days; but if he pushes, or bites, or kicks, or strikes even an hundred times on one day, this is no testification (not a sufficient one): three companies of witnesses testify of it in one day, lo, this is a doubt, whether it is a (proper) testimony or not; there is no testification but before the owner, and before the sanhedrim:"

and he hath not kept him in; in some enclosed place, house or field, not frequented by people, and where there was no danger of doing any hurt, if this care was not taken, after a proper testimony had been given of his vicious disposition. By the Roman laws ^o oxen that pushed with their horns were to have hay bound about them, that those that met them might beware of them; hence that of Horace ^p: but that he hath killed a man or a woman; by pushing and goring them with his horns, or any other way, as biting or kicking:

the ox shall be stoned; as is provided for the preceding law:

and his owner shall be put to death; since he was accessory to the death of the person killed, not keeping in his beast, when he had sufficient notice of his vicious temper: the Targum of Jonathan, and so other Jewish writers, interpret this of death sent upon him from heaven, or death by the immediate hand of God, as sudden death, or death by some disease inflicted, or before a man is fifty years of age; but there is no doubt to be made but this intends death by the civil magistrate, according to the original law, Gen 9:6.

Gill: Exo 21:30 - If there be laid on him a sum of money // then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatever, is laid upon him

If there be laid on him a sum of money,.... By the decree of the judges, as Aben Ezra, or which the sanhedrim of Israel have laid upon him; if his sentence of death is commuted for a fine, with the consent of the relations of the deceased, who in such a case are willing to show mercy, and take a fine instead of the person's death; supposing it was through carelessness and negligence, and not with any ill design that he did not keep up his ox from doing damage, after he had notice:

then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatever, is laid upon him; whatever mulct or fine he is amerced with by the court, instead of the sentence of death first pronounced. Of this ransom Maimonides ^q thus writes:"the ransom is according as the judges consider what is the price (or value) of him that is slain; (i.e. according to his rank, whether a noble or common man, a free man or a servant) all is according to the estimation of him that is slain.--To whom do they give the ransom? to the heirs of the slain; and if a woman is killed, the ransom is given to the heirs of her father's (family), and not to her husband.''

Gill: Exo 21:31 - Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter // according to this judgment shall it be done unto him

Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter,.... A little son or daughter, and both Israelites, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra; this is observed, because only a man or woman are made mention of in Exo 21:29 persons grown up; and lest it should be thought that only adult persons were intended, this is added, to show that the same regard is had to little ones as to grown persons, should they suffer by an ox in like manner as men and women may. The Targum of Jonathan restrains this to a son or daughter of an Israelite; but the life of everyone, of whatsoever nation, is equally provided for, and guarded against by the original law of God:

according to this judgment shall it be done unto him; to the owner of the ox that has gored a child, male or female; that is, he shall be put to death, if he has been warned of the practice of his ox for three days past, and has took no care to keep him in; or he shall pay the ransom of his life, as it has been laid by the court, with the consent of the relations of the children.

Gill: Exo 21:32 - If the ox shall push a manservant, or a maidservant // he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver

If the ox shall push a manservant, or a maidservant,.... Which the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi interpret of a Canaanitish servant, man or maid; but no doubt the same provision was made for an Hebrew servant, man or maid, as for a Gentile one:

he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver; that is, the owner of the ox shall pay so much to the masters of the servants for the loss they have sustained by his ox goring them; and Maimonides ^r observes, that"the ransom of servants, whether great or small, whether male or female, is fixed in the law, thirty shekels of good silver, whether the servant is worth a hundred pounds, or whether he is worth but a penny.''This was the price our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was sold at; see Gill on Mat 26:15.

Gill: Exo 21:33 - If a man shall open a pit // and an ox or an ass fall therein

If a man shall open a pit,.... That has been dug in time past, and filled up again, or take the covering from it, and leave it uncovered: "or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it": a new one, in the street, as the Targum of Jonathan; or in a public place, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra; otherwise a man might dig one for water, in his own fields, in enclosed places, where there was no danger of cattle coming thither, and falling therein:

and an ox or an ass fall therein; or any other beast, as Jarchi observes; for these are mentioned only as instances, and are put for all others. Maimonides ^s says,"if a man digs a pit in a public place, and an ox or ass fall into it and die, though the pit is full of shorn wool, and the like, the owner of the pit is bound to pay the whole damage; and this pit (he says) must be ten hands deep; if it is less than that, and an ox, or any other beast or fowl fall into it and die, he is free,''

Gill: Exo 21:34 - The owner of the pit shall make it good // and give the money unto the owner of them // and the dead beast shall be his

The owner of the pit shall make it good,.... Repair the loss of the ox or ass:

and give the money unto the owner of them: the price of them, what they are worth: the Targum of Jonathan is,"the owner of the pit shall pay the silver, he shall return to its owner the price of the ox or ass:"

and the dead beast shall be his; either the owner of the pit; who pays the full value for the ox or ass killed, which seems but reasonable; or"the injured person as Jarchi, for he says, they reckon or estimate the carcass, and he takes it for the price;''that is, for part of the price it is valued at.

Gill: Exo 21:35 - And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die // then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money // and the dead ox also they shall divide

And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die,.... By pushing with his horns, or his body, or by biting with his teeth, as Jarchi, or by any way whatever:

then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money; the Scripture speaks, as the same writer observes, of one of equal value, otherwise the man that had his ox killed might be greatly a gainer by it; for if his ox was a poor one, and of little value, and the ox that killed his a good one, of value greatly superior, which according to this law was to be sold, and the money divided between the two owners, the man that lost his ox might have double the worth of it, or more, which was not equitable. On the other hand, according to the Jewish canons ^t, the case stood thus,"when an ox of the value of one pound strikes an ox of the value of twenty, and kills him, and, lo, the carcass is of the value of four pounds, the owner of the ox is bound to pay him eight pounds, which is the half of the damage, (added to the half part of the price of the carcass,) but he is not bound to pay, but of the body of the ox which hurts, because it is said, "they shall sell the live ox"; wherefore if an ox of the value of twenty pieces of money should kill one of two hundred, and the carcass is valued at a pound, the master of the carcass cannot say to the master of the live ox, give me fifty pieces of money; but it will be said to him, lo, the ox which did the hurt is before thee, take him, and go thy way, although he is worth no more than a penny:"

and the dead ox also they shall divide; the money the carcass is worth; or it is sold for.

Gill: Exo 21:36 - Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past // and his owner hath not kept him in // he shall surely pay ox for ox

Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past,.... If it is a plain case, and a thing well known in the neighbourhood, and there are witnesses enough to testify it, that it has yesterday, and for two or three days running, pushed with his horns men and cattle, as they have come in his way; see Gill on Exo 21:29.

and his owner hath not kept him in; took no care to prevent his doing mischief by putting him into a barn or out house, or into an enclosure, where he could do no damage to any:

he shall surely pay ox for ox; that is, he shall give as good an ox to him, whose ox has been killed by his, as that was, or pay him the full worth and value of it: and the dead shall be his own; shall not be divided as in the preceding case, but shall be the proprietor's wholly, that is, the sufferer's; because the owner of the vicious ox took no care of him, though it was well known he was mischievous, for which negligence he was punished this way.

Tafsiran/Catatan -- Catatan Ayat / Catatan Kaki

NET Notes: Exo 21:1

¹ sn There follows now a series of rulings called “the decisions” or “the judgments” (הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, hammishpatim). A precept is stated, and then various cases in which the law is applicable are examined. These rulings are all in harmony with the Decalogue that has just been given and can be grouped into three categories: civil or criminal laws, religious or cultic laws, and moral or humanitarian laws. The civil and criminal laws make up most of chap. 21; the next two chapters mix the other kinds of laws. Among the many studies of this section of the book are F. C. Fensham, “The Role of the Lord in the Legal Sections of the Covenant Code,” VT 26 (1976): 262-74; S. Paul, “Unrecognized Biblical Legal Idioms in Light of Comparative Akkadian Expressions,” RB 86 (1979): 231-39; M. Galston, “The Purpose of the Law According to Maimonides,” JQR 69 (1978): 27-51.

NET Notes: Exo 21:2

¹ sn See H. L. Elleson, “The Hebrew Slave: A Study in Early Israelite Society,” EvQ 45 (1973): 30-35; N. P. Lemche, “The Manumission of Slaves – The Fallow Year – The Sabbatical Year – The Jobel Year,” VT 26 (1976): 38-59, and “The ‘Hebrew Slave,’ Comments on the Slave Law – Ex. 21:2-11,” VT 25 (1975): 129-44.

² tn The verbs in both the conditional clause and the following ruling are imperfect tense: “If you buy…then he will serve.” The second imperfect tense (the ruling) could be taken either as a specific future or an obligatory imperfect. Gesenius explains how the verb works in the conditional clauses here (see GKC 497 §159.bb).

³ sn The interpretation of “Hebrew” in this verse is uncertain: (l) a gentilic ending, (2) a fellow Israelite, (3) or a class of mercenaries of the population (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:431). It seems likely that the term describes someone born a Hebrew, as opposed to a foreigner (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 210). The literature on this includes: M. P. Gray, “The Habiru-Hebrew Problem,” HUCA 29 (1958): 135-202.

⁴ sn The word חָפְשִׁי (khofshi) means “free.” It is possible that there is some connection between this word and a technical term used in other cultures for a social class of emancipated slaves who were freemen again (see I. Mendelsohn, “New Light on the Hupsu,” BASOR 139 [1955]: 9-11).

⁵ tn The adverb חִנָּם (hinnam) means “gratis, free”; it is related to the verb “to be gracious, show favor” and the noun “grace.”

NET Notes: Exo 21:3

¹ tn The tense is imperfect, but in the conditional clause it clearly refers to action that is anterior to the action in the next clause. Heb “if he comes in single, he goes out single,” that is, “if he came in single, he will go out single.”

² tn Heb “with his back” meaning “alone.”

³ tn The phrase says, “if he was the possessor of a wife”; the noun בַּעַל (ba’al) can mean “possessor” or “husband.” If there was a wife, she shared his fortunes or his servitude; if he entered with her, she would accompany him when he left.

NET Notes: Exo 21:4

¹ sn The slave would not have the right or the means to acquire a wife. Thus, the idea of the master’s “giving” him a wife is clear – the master would have to pay the bride price and make the provision. In this case, the wife and the children are actually the possession of the master unless the slave were to pay the bride price – but he is a slave because he got into debt. The law assumes that the master was better able to provide for this woman than the freed slave and that it was most important to keep the children with the mother.

NET Notes: Exo 21:5

¹ tn The imperfect with the infinitive absolute means that the declaration is unambiguous, that the servant will clearly affirm that he wants to stay with the master. Gesenius says that in a case like this the infinitive emphasizes the importance of the condition on which some consequence depends (GKC 342-43 §113.o).

² tn Or taken as a desiderative imperfect, it would say, “I do not want to go out free.”

NET Notes: Exo 21:6

¹ tn The word is הָאֱלֹהִים (ha’elohim). S. R. Driver (Exodus, 211) says the phrase means “to God,” namely the nearest sanctuary in order that the oath and the ritual might be made solemn, although he does say that it would be done by human judges. That the reference is to Yahweh God is the view also of F. C. Fensham, “New Light on Exodus 21:7 and 22:7 from the Laws of Eshnunna,” JBL 78 (1959): 160-61. Cf. also ASV, NAB, NASB, NCV, NRSV, NLT. Others have made a stronger case that it refers to judges who acted on behalf of God; see C. Gordon, “אלהים in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” JBL 54 (1935): 134-44; and A. E. Draffkorn, “Ilani/Elohim,” JBL 76 (1957): 216-24; cf. KJV, NIV.

² tn Or “till his life’s end” (as in the idiom: “serve him for good”).

NET Notes: Exo 21:7

¹ sn This paragraph is troubling to modern readers, but given the way that marriages were contracted and the way people lived in the ancient world, it was a good provision for people who might want to find a better life for their daughter. On the subject in general for this chapter, see W. M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women, 31-64.

² tn The word אָמָה (’amah) refers to a female servant who would eventually become a concubine or wife; the sale price included the amount for the service as well as the bride price (see B. Jacob, Exodus, 621). The arrangement recognized her honor as an Israelite woman, one who could be a wife, even though she entered the household in service. The marriage was not automatic, as the conditions show, but her treatment was safeguarded come what may. The law was a way, then, for a poor man to provide a better life for a daughter.

NET Notes: Exo 21:8

¹ tn Heb “and if unpleasant (רָעָה, ra’ah) in the eyes of her master.”

² tn The verb יָעַד (ya’ad) does not mean “betroth, espouse” as some of the earlier translations had it, but “to designate.” When he bought the girl, he designated her for himself, giving her and her family certain expectations.

³ tn The verb is a Hiphil perfect with vav (ו) consecutive from פָדָה (padah, “to redeem”). Here in the apodosis the form is equivalent to an imperfect: “let someone redeem her” – perhaps her father if he can, or another. U. Cassuto says it can also mean she can redeem herself and dissolve the relationship (Exodus, 268).

⁴ tn Heb “he has no authority/power,” for the verb means “rule, have dominion.”

⁵ sn The deceit is in not making her his wife or concubine as the arrangement had stipulated.

NET Notes: Exo 21:9

¹ tn Or “after the manner of” (KJV, ASV); NRSV “shall deal with her as with a daughter.”

NET Notes: Exo 21:10

¹ tn “wife” has been supplied.

² tn The translation of “food” does not quite do justice to the Hebrew word. It is “flesh.” The issue here is that the family she was to marry into is wealthy, they ate meat. She was not just to be given the basic food the ordinary people ate, but the fine foods that this family ate.

³ sn See S. Paul, “Exodus 21:10, A Threefold Maintenance Clause,” JNES 28 (1969): 48-53. Paul suggests that the third element listed is not marital rights but ointments since Sumerian and Akkadian texts list food, clothing, and oil as the necessities of life. The translation of “marital rights” is far from certain, since the word occurs only here. The point is that the woman was to be cared for with all that was required for a woman in that situation.

NET Notes: Exo 21:11

¹ sn The lessons of slavery and service are designed to bring justice to existing customs in antiquity. The message is: Those in slavery for one reason or another should have the hope of freedom and the choice of service (vv. 2-6). For the rulings on the daughter, the message could be: Women, who were often at the mercy of their husbands or masters, must not be trapped in an unfortunate situation, but be treated well by their masters or husbands (vv. 7-11). God is preventing people who have power over others from abusing it.

NET Notes: Exo 21:12

¹ sn The underlying point of this section remains vital today: The people of God must treat all human life as sacred.

² tn The construction uses a Hiphil participle in construct with the noun for “man” (or person as is understood in a law for the nation): “the one striking [of] a man.” This is a casus pendens (independent nominative absolute); it indicates the condition or action that involves further consequence (GKC 361 §116.w).

³ tn The Hebrew word וָמֵת (vamet) is a Qal perfect with vav consecutive; it means “and he dies” and not “and killed him” (which require another stem). Gesenius notes that this form after a participle is the equivalent of a sentence representing a contingent action (GKC 333 §112.n). The word shows the result of the action in the opening participle. It is therefore a case of murder or manslaughter.

⁴ sn See A. Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977): 105-26.

NET Notes: Exo 21:13

¹ tn Heb “if he does not lie in wait” (NASB similar).

² tn Heb “and God brought into his hand.” The death is unintended, its circumstances outside human control.

NET Notes: Exo 21:14

¹ tn The word עָרְמָה (’ormah) is problematic. It could mean with prior intent, which would be connected with the word in Prov 8:5, 12 which means “understanding” (or “prudence” – fully aware of the way things are). It could be connected also to an Arabic word for “enemy” which would indicate this was done with malice or evil intentions (U. Cassuto, Exodus, 270). The use here seems parallel to the one in Josh 9:4, an instance involving intentionality and clever deception.

NET Notes: Exo 21:15

¹ sn This is the same construction that was used in v. 12, but here there is no mention of the parents’ death. This attack, then, does not lead to their death – if he killed one of them then v. 12 would be the law. S. R. Driver says that the severity of the penalty was in accord with the high view of parents (Exodus, 216).

NET Notes: Exo 21:16

¹ tn Heb “a stealer of a man,” thus “anyone stealing a man.”

² sn The implication is that it would be an Israelite citizen who was kidnapped and sold to a foreign tribe or country (like Joseph). There was always a market for slaves. The crime would be in forcibly taking the individual away from his home and religion and putting him into bondage or death.

³ tn Literally “and he is found in his hand” (KJV and ASV both similar), being not yet sold.

NET Notes: Exo 21:17

¹ tn The form is a Piel participle from קָלַל (qalal), meaning in Qal “be light,” in Piel “treat lightly, curse, revile, declare contemptible, treat shamefully.” (See its use in Lev 19:14; Josh 24:9; Judg 9:26-28; 1 Sam 3:13; 17:43; 2 Sam 16:5-13; Prov 30:10-11; Eccl 7:21-22; 10:20.) It is opposite of “honor” (כָּבֵד, kaved; Qal “be heavy”; Piel “honor,” as in 20:12) and of “bless.” This verse then could refer to any act contrary to the commandment to honor the parents. B. Jacob (Exodus, 640) cites parallels in Sumerian where people were severely punished for publicly disowning their parents. “21:15, 17 taken together evoke the picture of parents who, physically and verbally, are forcibly turned out of the house (cf. Prov. 19:26)” (C. Houtman, Exodus, 3:148).

NET Notes: Exo 21:18

¹ tn Heb “falls to bed.”

NET Notes: Exo 21:19

¹ tn “and then” has been supplied.

² tn The verb is a Hitpael perfect with vav (ו) consecutive; it follows the sequence of the imperfect before it – “if he gets up and walks about.” This is proof of recovery.

³ tn The imperfect tense carries a nuance of obligatory imperfect because this is binding on the one who hit him.

⁴ tn Heb “his”; the referent (the injured person) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁵ tn The word appears to be the infinitive from the verb “to sit” with a meaning of “his sitting down”; some suggest it is from the verb “to rest” with a meaning “cease.” In either case the point in the context must mean compensation is due for the time he was down.

NET Notes: Exo 21:20

¹ tn Heb “so that he”; the words “or she” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

² tn Heb “under his hand.”

³ tn Heb “will be avenged” (how is not specified).

NET Notes: Exo 21:21

¹ tn Heb “if he”; the referent (the servant struck and injured in the previous verse) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Heb “he”; the referent (the owner of the injured servant) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

³ tn This last clause is a free paraphrase of the Hebrew, “for he is his money” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “his property.” It seems that if the slave survives a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him. If he then dies, there is no penalty other than that the owner loses the slave who is his property – he suffers the loss.

NET Notes: Exo 21:22

¹ tn This line has occasioned a good deal of discussion. It may indicate that the child was killed, as in a miscarriage; or it may mean that there was a premature birth. The latter view is taken here because of the way the whole section is written: (1) “her children come out” reflects a birth and not the loss of children, (2) there is no serious damage, and (3) payment is to be set for any remuneration. The word אָסוֹן (’ason) is translated “serious damage.” The word was taken in Mekilta to mean “death.” U. Cassuto says the point of the phrase is that neither the woman or the children that are born die (Exodus, 275). But see among the literature on this: M. G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JETS 20 (1977): 193-201; W. House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25,” WTJ 41 (1978): 108-23; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Exodus XXI 22-25,” VT 27 (1977): 352-60.

² tn The word בִּפְלִלִים (biflilim) means “with arbitrators.” The point then seems to be that the amount of remuneration for damages that was fixed by the husband had to be approved by the courts. S. R. Driver mentions an alternative to this unusual reading presented by Budde, reading בנפלים as “untimely birth” (Exodus, 219). See also E. A. Speiser, “The Stem PLL in Hebrew,” JBL 82 (1963): 301-6.

NET Notes: Exo 21:25

¹ sn The text now introduces the Lex Talionis with cases that were not likely to have applied to the situation of the pregnant woman. See K. Luke, “Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth,” Indian Theological Studies 16 (1979): 326-43.

NET Notes: Exo 21:26

¹ tn The form וְשִׁחֲתָהּ (vÿshikhatah) is the Piel perfect with the vav (ל) consecutive, rendered “and destroys it.” The verb is a strong one, meaning “to ruin, completely destroy.”

² tn Heb “him”; the referent (the male or female servant) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ sn Interestingly, the verb used here for “let him go” is the same verb throughout the first part of the book for “release” of the Israelites from slavery. Here, an Israelite will have to release the injured slave.

NET Notes: Exo 21:27

¹ tn Heb “him”; the referent (the male or female servant) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Exo 21:28

¹ sn The point that this section of the laws makes is that one must ensure the safety of others by controlling the circumstances.

² tn Traditionally “ox,” but “bull” would also be suitable. The term may refer to one of any variety of large cattle.

³ tn Heb “and he dies”; KJV “that they die”; NAB, NASB “to death.”

⁴ tn The text uses סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל (saqol yissaqel), a Qal infinitive absolute with a Niphal imperfect. The infinitive intensifies the imperfect, which here has an obligatory nuance or is a future of instruction.

NET Notes: Exo 21:29

¹ tn The Hophal perfect has the idea of “attested, testified against.”

² tn Heb “he was not keeping it” or perhaps guarding or watching it (referring to the ox).

NET Notes: Exo 21:30

¹ sn The family of the victim would set the amount for the ransom of the man guilty of criminal neglect. This practice was common in the ancient world, rare in Israel. If the family allowed the substitute price, then the man would be able to redeem his life.

NET Notes: Exo 21:31

¹ tn Heb “it”; the referent (the ox) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Heb “he”; the referent (the owner) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Heb “according to this judgment it shall be done to him.”

NET Notes: Exo 21:32

¹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the owner) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² sn A shekel was a unit for measure by means of a scale. Both the weight and the value of a shekel of silver are hard to determine. “Though there is no certainty, the shekel is said to weigh about 11,5 grams” (C. Houtman, Exodus, 3:181). Over four hundred years earlier, Joseph was sold into Egypt for 20 shekels. The free Israelite citizen was worth about 50 shekels (Lev 27:3f.).

³ sn See further B. S. Jackson, “The Goring Ox Again [Ex. 21,28-36],” JJP 18 (1974): 55-94.

NET Notes: Exo 21:34

¹ tn The verb is a Piel imperfect from שָׁלַם (shalam); it has the idea of making payment in full, making recompense, repaying. These imperfects could be given a future tense translation as imperfects of instruction, but in the property cases an obligatory imperfect fits better – this is what he is bound or obliged to do – what he must do.

² tn Heb “silver.”

³ tn Here the term “animal” has been supplied.

NET Notes: Exo 21:35

¹ tn Literally “its silver” or “silver for it.”

² tn Heb “divide the dead.” The noun “ox” has been supplied.

NET Notes: Exo 21:36

¹ tn The construction now uses the same Piel imperfect (v. 34) but adds the infinitive absolute to it for emphasis.

² sn The point of this section (21:28-36) seems to be that one must ensure the safety of others by controlling one’s property and possessions. This section pertained to neglect with animals, but the message would have applied to similar situations. The people of God were to take heed to ensure the well-being of others, and if there was a problem, it had to be made right.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:2

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for ^{( a )} nothing.

^{( a )} Paying no money for his freedom.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:3

If he ^{( b )} came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

^{( b )} Not having wife nor children.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:4

If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her ^{( c )} master's, and he shall go out by himself.

^{( c )} Till her time of servitude was expired which might be the seventh year or the fiftieth.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:6

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the ^{( d )} door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ^{( e )} ever.

^{( d )} Where the judges sat.

^{( e )} That is, to the year of Jubile, which was every fiftieth year.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:7

And if a man ^{( f )} sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

^{( f )} Forced either by poverty, or else with the intent that the master should marry her.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:8

If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall ^{( g )} he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

^{( g )} By giving another money to buy her from him.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:9

And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her ^{( h )} after the manner of daughters.

^{( h )} That is, he shall give his dowry.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:10

If he take ^{( i )} him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

^{( i )} For his son.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:11

And if he do not these ^{( k )} three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

^{( k )} Neither marry her himself, nor give another money to buy her, nor bestow her on his son.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:13

And if a man lie not in wait, but ^{( l )} God deliver [him] into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

^{( l )} Though a man be killed unawares, yet it is God's providence that it should so be.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:14

But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine ^{( m )} altar, that he may die.

^{( m )} The holiness of the place should not defend the murderer.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:18

And if men strive together, and one smite another with a ^{( n )} stone, or with [his] fist, and he die not, but keepeth [his] bed:

^{( n )} Either far away from him or near.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:19

If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote [him] be ^{( o )} quit: only he shall pay [for] the loss of his time, and shall cause [him] to be thoroughly healed.

^{( o )} By the civil justice.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:21

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not ^{( p )} be punished: for he [is] his money.

^{( p )} By the civil magistrate, but before God he is a murderer.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:22

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no ^{( q )} mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].

^{( q )} Or, "death": of the mother or child in the event she miscarries. Also the death on the unborn infant.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:24

^{( r )} Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

^{( r )} The execution of this law only belonged to the magistrate, (Mat 5:38).

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:27

And if he smite ^{( s )} out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

^{( s )} So God revenges cruelty in the even the least things.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:28

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely ^{( t )} stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.

^{( t )} If the beast be punished, much more shall the murderer.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:30

If there be laid on him a ^{( u )} sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

^{( u )} By the next of the kindred of him that is so slain.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:32

If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty ^{( x )} shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

^{( x )} Read (Gen 23:15).

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:34

The owner of the pit shall ^{( y )} make [it] good, [and] give money unto the owner of them; and the dead [beast] shall be his.

^{( y )} This law forbids not only to hurt, but to beware lest any be hurt.

Tafsiran/Catatan -- Catatan Rentang Ayat

MHCC: Exo 21:1-11

The laws in this chapter relate to the fifth and sixth commandments; and though they differ from our times and customs, nor are they binding on us, yet they explain the moral law, and the rules of natural justice. The servant, in the state of servitude, was an emblem of that state of bondage to sin, Satan, and the law, which man is brought into by robbing God of his glory, by the transgression of his precepts. Likewise in being made free, he was an emblem of that liberty wherewith Christ, the Son of God, makes free from bondage his people, who are free indeed; and made so freely, without money and without price, of free grace.

MHCC: Exo 21:12-21

God, who by his providence gives and maintains life, by his law protects it. A wilful murderer shall be taken even from God's altar. But God provided cities of refuge to protect those whose unhappiness it was, and not their fault, to cause the death of another; for such as by accident, when a man is doing a lawful act, without intent of hurt, happens to kill another. Let children hear the sentence of God's word upon the ungrateful and disobedient; and remember that God will certainly requite it, if they have ever cursed their parents, even in their hearts, or have lifted up their hands against them, except they repent, and flee for refuge to the Saviour. And let parents hence learn to be very careful in training up their children, setting them a good example, especially in the government of their passions, and in praying for them; taking heed not to provoke them to wrath. Through poverty the Israelites sometimes sold themselves or their children; magistrates sold some persons for their crimes, and creditors were in some cases allowed to sell their debtors who could not pay. But " man-stealing," the object of which is to force another into slavery, is ranked in the New Testament with the greatest crimes. Care is here taken, that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not follow. The gospel teaches masters to forbear, and to moderate threatenings, Eph 6:9, considering with Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13, Job 31:14.

MHCC: Exo 21:22-36

The cases here mentioned give rules of justice then, and still in use, for deciding similar matters. We are taught by these laws, that we must be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly. If we have done wrong, we must be very willing to make it good, and be desirous that nobody may lose by us.

Matthew Henry: Exo 21:1-11

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.

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, 1Co 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, Phm 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, 1Pe 3:7.

Matthew Henry: Exo 21:12-21

Here is, I. A law concerning murder. He had lately said, Thou shalt not kill; here he provides, 1. For the punishing of wilful murder (Exo 21:12): He that smiteth a man, whether upon a sudden passion or in malice prepense, so that he die, the government must take care that the murderer be put to death, according to that ancient law (Gen 9:6), Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. God, who by his providence gives and maintains life, thus by his law protects it; so that mercy shown to a wilful murderer is real cruelty to all mankind besides: such a one, God here says, shall be taken even from his altar (Exo 21:14), to which he might flee for protection; and, if God will not shelter him, let him flee to the pit, and let no man stay him. 2. For the relief of such as killed by accident, per infortunium - by misfortune, or chance-medley, as our law expresses it, when a man, in doing a lawful act, without intent of hurt to any, happens to kill another, or, as it is here described, God delivers him into his hand; for nothing comes to pass by chance; what seems to us purely casual is ordered by the divine Providence, for wise and holy ends secret to us. In this case God provided cities of refuge for the protection of those whose infelicity it was, but not their fault, to occasion the death of another, Exo 21:13. With us, who know no avengers of blood but the magistrates, the law itself is a sufficient sanctuary for those whose minds are innocent, though their hands are guilty, and there needs no other.

II. Concerning rebellious children. It is here made a capital crime, to be punished with death, for children either, 1. To strike their parents (Exo 21:15) so as either to draw blood or to make the place struck black and blue. Or, 2. To curse their parents (Exo 21:17), if they profaned any name of God in doing it, as the rabbies say. Note, The undutiful behaviour of children towards their parents is a very great provocation to God our common Father; and, if men do not punish it, he will. Those are perfectly lost to all virtue, and abandoned to all wickedness, that have broken through the bonds of filial reverence and duty to such a degree as in word or action to abuse their own parents. What yoke will those bear that have shaken off this? Let children take heed of entertaining in their minds any such thought or passions towards their parents as savour of undutifulness and contempt; for the righteous God searches the heart.

III. Here is a law against man-stealing (Exo 21:16): He that steals a man (that is, a person, man, woman, or child), with design to sell him to the Gentiles (for no Israelite would buy him), was adjudged to death by this statute, which is ratified by the apostle (1Ti 1:10), where men-stealers are reckoned among those wicked ones against whom laws must be made by Christian princes.

IV. Care is here taken that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not ensue, Exo 21:18, Exo 21:19. He that did the hurt must be accountable for damages, and pay, not only for the cure, but for the loss of time, to which the Jews add that he must likewise give some recompence both for the pain and for the blemish, if there were any.

V. Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master's correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, Exo 21:20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, Exo 21:21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master's reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13-15.

Matthew Henry: Exo 21:22-36

Observe here,

I. The particular care which the law took of women with child, that no hurt should be done them which might occasion their mis-carrying. The law of nature obliges us to be very tender in that case, lest the tree and fruit be destroyed together, Exo 21:22, Exo 21:23. Women with child, who are thus taken under the special protection of the law of God, if they live in his fear, may still believe themselves under the special protection of the providence of God, and hope that they shall be saved in child-bearing. On this occasion comes in that general law of retaliation which our Saviour refers to, Mat 5:38, An eye for an eye. Now, 1. The execution of this law is not hereby put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion, and make men like the fishes of the sea. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it, in opposition to which our Saviour commands us to forgive injuries, and not to meditate revenge, Mat 5:39. 2. God often executes it in the course of his providence, making the punishment, in many cases, to answer to the sin, as Jdg 1:7; Isa 33:1; Hab 2:13; Mat 26:52. 3. Magistrates ought to have an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured. Consideration must be had of the nature, quality, and degree of the wrong done, that reparation may be made to the party injured, and others deterred from doing the like; either an eye shall go for an eye, or the forfeited eye shall be redeemed by a sum of money. Note, He that does wrong must expect one way or other to receive according to the wrong he has done, Col 3:25. God sometimes brings men's violent dealings upon their own heads (Psa 7:16); and magistrates are in this the ministers of the justice, that they are avengers (Rom 13:4), and they shall not bear the sword in vain.

II. The care God took of servants. If their masters maimed them, though it was only striking out a tooth, that should be their discharge, Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27. This was intended, 1. To prevent their being abused; masters would be careful not to offer them any violence, lest they should lose their service. 2. To comfort them if they were abused; the loss of a limb should be the gaining of their liberty, which would do something towards balancing both the pain and disgrace they underwent. Nay,

III. Does God take care for oxen? Yes, it appears by the following laws in this chapter that he does, for our sakes, 1Co 9:9, 1Co 9:10. The Israelites are here directed what to do,

1. In case of hurt done by oxen, or any other brute-creature; for the law, doubtless, was designed to extend to all parallel cases. (1.) As an instance of God's care of the life of man (though forfeited a thousand times into the hands of divine justice), and in token of his detestation of the sin of murder. If an ox killed any man, woman, or child, the ox was to be stoned (Exo 21:28); and, because the greatest honour of the inferior creatures is to be serviceable to man, the criminal is denied that honour: his flesh shall not be eaten. Thus God would keep up in the minds of his people a rooted abhorrence of the sin of murder and every thing that was barbarous. (2.) To make men careful that none of their cattle might do hurt, but that, by all means possible, mischief might be prevented. If the owner of the beast knew that he was mischievous, he must answer for the hurt done, and, according as the circumstances of the case proved him to be more or less accessory, he must either be put to death or ransom his life with a sum of money, Exo 21:29-32. Some of our ancient books make this felony, by the common law of England, and give this reason, "The owner, by suffering his beast to go at liberty when he knew it to be mischievous, shows that he was very willing that hurt should be done."Note, It is not enough for us not to do mischief ourselves, but we must take care that no mischief be done by those whom it is in our power to restrain, whether man or beast.

2. In case of hurt done to oxen, or other cattle. (1.) If they fall into a pit, and perish there, he that opened the pit must make good the loss, Exo 21:33, Exo 21:34. Note, We must take heed not only of doing that which will be hurtful, but of doing that which may be so. It is not enough not to design and devise mischief, but we must contrive to prevent mischief, else we become accessory to our neighbours' damage. Mischief done in malice is the great transgression; but mischief done through negligence, and for want of due care and consideration, is not without fault, but ought to be reflected upon with great regret, according as the degree of the mischief is: especially we must be careful that we do nothing to make ourselves accessory to the sins of others, by laying an occasion of offence in our brother's way, Rom 14:13. (2.) If cattle fight, and one kill another, the owners shall equally share in the loss, Exo 21:35. Only if the beast that had done the harm was known to the owner to have been mischievous he shall answer for the damage, because he ought either to have killed him or kept him up, Exo 21:36. The determinations of these cases carry with them the evidence of their own equity, and give such rules of justice as were then, and are still, in use, for the decision of similar controversies that arise between man and man. But I conjecture that these cases might be specified, rather than others (though some of them seem minute), because they were then cases in fact actually depending before Moses; for in the wilderness where they lay closely encamped, and had their flocks and herds among them, such mischiefs as these last mentioned were likely enough to occur. That which we are taught by these laws is that we should be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly; and that, if we have done wrong, we must be very willing to make satisfaction, and desirous that nobody may lose by us.

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 21:1

The mishpatim (Exo 21:1) are not the "laws, which were to be in force and serve as rules of action,"as Knobel affirms, but the rights , by which the national life was formed into a civil commonwealth and the political order secured. These rights had reference first of all to the relation in which the individuals stood one towards another. The personal rights of dependants are placed at the head (Exo 21:2-11); and first those of slaves (Exo 21:2-6), which are still more minutely explained in Deu 15:12-18, where the observance of them is urged upon the hearts of the people on subjective grounds.

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 21:2

The Hebrew servant was to obtain his freedom without paying compensation, after six years of service. According to Deu 15:12, this rule applied to the Hebrew maid-servant as well. The predicate עברי limits the rule to Israelitish servants, in distinction from slaves of foreign extraction, to whom this law did not apply (cf. Deu 15:12, "thy brother").

(Note: Saalschütz is quite wrong in his supposition, that עבריrelates not to Israelites, but to relations of the Israelites who had come over to them from their original native land. (See my Archδologie , §112, Note 2.))

An Israelite might buy his own countryman, either when he was sold by a court of justice on account of theft (Exo 22:1), or when he was poor and sold himself (Lev 25:39). The emancipation in the seventh year of service was intimately connected with the sabbatical year, though we are not to understand it as taking place in that particular year. "He shall go out free,"sc., from his master's house, i.e., be set at liberty. חנּם : without compensation. In Deuteronomy the master is also commanded not to let him go out empty, but to load him ( חעניק to put upon his neck) from his flock, his threshing-floor, and his wine-press (i.e., with corn and wine); that is to say, to give him as much as he could carry away with him. The motive for this command is drawn from their recollection of their own deliverance by Jehovah from the bondage of Egypt. And in Exo 21:18 an additional reason is supplied, to incline the heart of the master to this emancipation, viz., that "he has served thee for six years the double of a labourer's wages,"- that is to say, "he has served and worked so much, that it would have cost twice as much, if it had been necessary to hire a labourer in his place"( Schultz ), - and "Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee in all that thou doest,"sc., through his service.

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 21:3-6

There were three different circumstances possible, under which emancipation might take place. The servant might have been unmarried and continued so ( בּגפּו : with his body, i.e., alone, single): in that case, of course, there was no one else to set at liberty. Or he might have brought a wife with him; and in that case his wife was to be set at liberty as well. Or his master might have given him a wife in his bondage, and she might have borne him children: in that case the wife and children were to continue the property of the master. This may appear oppressive, but it was an equitable consequence of the possession of property in slaves at all. At the same time, in order to modify the harshness of such a separation of husband and wife, the option was given to the servant to remain in his master's service, provided he was willing to renounce his liberty for ever (Exo 21:5, Exo 21:6). This would very likely be the case as a general rule; for there were various legal arrangements, which are mentioned in other places, by which the lot of Hebrew slaves was greatly softened and placed almost on an equality with that of hired labourers (cf. Exo 23:12; Lev 25:6, Lev 25:39, Lev 25:43, Lev 25:53; Deu 12:18; Deu 16:11). In this case the master was to take his servant האלהים אל , lit., to God, i.e., according to the correct rendering of the lxx, πρὸς τὸ κριτήριον , to the place where judgment was given in the name of God (Deu 1:17; cf. Exo 22:7-8, and Deu 19:17), in order that he might make a declaration there that he gave up his liberty. His ear was then to be bored with an awl against the door or lintel of the house, and by this sign, which was customary in many of the nations of antiquity, to be fastened as it were to the house for ever. That this was the meaning of the piercing of the ear against the door of the house, is evident from the unusual expression in Deu 15:17, "and put (the awl) into his ear and into the door, that he may be thy servant for ever,"where the ear and the door are co-ordinates. " For ever, "i.e., as long as he lives. Josephus and the Rabbins would restrict the service to the time ending with the year of jubilee, but without sufficient reason, and contrary to the usage of the language, as לעלם is used in Lev 25:46 to denote service which did not terminate with the year of jubilee. (See the remarks on Lev 25:10; also my Archäologie .)

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 21:7-11

The daughter of an Israelite, who had been sold by her father as a maid-servant ( לאמה ), i.e., as the sequel shows, as a housekeeper and concubine, stood in a different relation to her master's house. She was not to go out like the men-servants, i.e., not to be sent away as free at the end of six years of service; but the three following regulations, which are introduced by אם (Exo 21:8), ואם (Exo 21:9), and ואם (Exo 21:11), were to be observed with regard to her. In the first place (Exo 21:8), " if she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed. "The לא before יעדהּ is one of the fifteen cases in which לא has been marked in the Masoretic text as standing for לו ; and it cannot possibly signify not in the passage before us. For if it were to be taken as a negative, "that he do not appoint her,"sc., as a concubine for himself, the pronoun לו would certainly not be omitted. הפדּהּ (for הפדּהּ , see Ges. §53, Note 6), to let her be redeemed, i.e., to allow another Israelite to buy her as a concubine; for there can hardly have been any thought of redemption on the part of the father, as it would no doubt be poverty alone that caused him to sell his daughter (Lev 25:39). But " to sell her unto a strange nation (i.e., to any one but a Hebrew), he shall have no power, if he acts unfaithfully towards her, "i.e., if he do not grant her the promised marriage. In the second place (Exo 21:9, Exo 21:10), " if he appoint her as his son's wife, he shall act towards her according to the rights of daughters, "i.e., treat her as a daughter; "and if he take him (the son) another (wife), - whether because the son was no longer satisfied, or because the father gave the son another wife in addition to her - " her food ( שׁאר flesh as the chief article of food, instead of לחם , bread, because the lawgiver had persons of property in his mind, who were in a position to keep concubines), her raiment, and her duty of marriage he shall not diminish, "i.e., the claims which she had as a daughter for support, and as his son's wife for conjugal rights, were not to be neglected; he was not to allow his son, therefore, to put her away or treat her badly. With this explanation the difficulties connected with every other are avoided. For instance, if we refer the words of Exo 21:9 to the son, and understand them as meaning, "if the son should take another wife,"we introduce a change of subject without anything to indicate it. If, on the other hand, we regard them as meaning, "if the father (the purchaser) should take to himself another wife,"this ought to have come before Exo 21:9. In the third place (Exo 21:11), " if he do not (do not grant) these three unto her, she shall go out for nothing, without money .""These three"are food, clothing, and conjugal rights, which are mentioned just before; not " si eam non desponderit sibi nec filio, nec redimi sit passus "( Rabbins and others), nor "if he did not give her to his son as a concubine, but diminished her,"as Knobel explains it.

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 21:12-17

Still higher than personal liberty, however, is life itself, the right of existence and personality; and the infliction of injury upon this was not only prohibited, but to be followed by punishment corresponding to the crime. The principle of retribution, jus talionis , which is the only one that embodies the idea of justice, lies at the foundation of these threats.

Exo 21:12-13

A death-blow was to be punished with death (cf. Gen 9:6; Lev 24:17). " He that smiteth a man and (so that) he die (whether on the spot or directly afterwards did not matter), he shall be put to death ."This general rule is still further defined by a distinction being drawn between accidental and intentional killing. " But whoever has not lain in wait (for another's life), and God has caused it to come to his hand "(to kill the other); i.e., not only if he did not intend to kill him, but did not even cherish the intention of smiting him, or of doing him harm from hatred and enmity (Num 35:16-23; Deu 19:4-5), and therefore did so quite unawares, according to a dispensation of God, which is generally called an accident because it is above our comprehension. For such a man God would appoint places of refuge, where he should be protected against the avenger of blood. (On this point, see Num 35:9.).

Exo 21:14-17

"But he who acts presumptuously against his neighbour, to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from Mine altar that he may die." These words are not to be understood as meaning, that only intentional and treacherous killing was to be punished with death; but, without restricting the general rule in Exo 21:12, they are to be interpreted from their antithesis to Exo 21:13, as signifying that even the altar of Jehovah was not to protect a man who had committed intentional murder, and carried out his purpose with treachery. (More on this point at Num 35:16.) By this regulation, the idea, which was common to the Hebrews and many other nations, that the altar as God's abode afforded protection to any life that was in danger from men, was brought back to the true measure of its validity, and the place of expiation for sins of weakness (cf. Lev 4:2; Lev 5:15, Lev 5:18; Num 15:27-31) was prevented from being abused by being made a place of refuge for criminals who were deserving of death. Maltreatment of a father and mother through striking (Exo 21:15), man-stealing (Exo 21:16), and cursing parents (Exo 21:17, cf. Lev 20:9), were all to be placed on a par with murder, and punished in the same way. By the " smiting "( הכּה ) of parents we are not to understand smiting to death, for in that case ומת would be added as in Exo 21:12, but any kind of maltreatment. The murder of parents is not mentioned at all, as not likely to occur and hardly conceivable. The cursing ( קלּל as in Gen 12:3) of parents is placed on a par with smiting, because it proceeds from the same disposition; and both were to be punished with death, because the majesty of God was violated in the persons of the parents (cf. Exo 20:12). Man-stealing was also no less a crime, being a sin against the dignity of man, and a violation of the image of God. For אישׁ "a man,"we find in Deu 24:7, נפשׁ "a soul,"by which both man and woman are intended, and the still more definite limitation, "of his brethren of the children of Israel."The crime remained the same whether he had sold him (the stolen man), or whether he was still found in his hand. (For ו - ו as a sign of an alternative in the linking together of short sentences, see Pro 29:9, and Ewald, §361.) This is the rendering adopted by most of the earlier translators, and we get no intelligent sense if we divide the clauses thus: "and sell him so that he is found in his hand."

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 21:18-32

Fatal blows and the crimes placed on a par with them are now followed in simple order by the laws relating to bodily injuries .

Exo 21:18-19

If in the course of a quarrel one man should hit another with a stone or with his fist, so that, although he did not die, he " lay upon his bed, "i.e., became bedridden; if the person struck should get up again and walk out with his staff, the other would be innocent, he should " only give him his sitting and have him cured, "i.e., compensate him for his loss of time and the cost of recovery. This certainly implies, on the one hand, that if the man died upon his bed, the injury was to be punished with death, according to Exo 21:12; and on the other hand, that if he died after getting up and going out, no further punishment was to be inflicted for the injury done.

Exo 21:20-21

The case was different with regard to a slave. The master had always the right to punish or "chasten"him with a stick (Pro 10:13; Pro 13:24); this right was involved in the paternal authority of the master over the servants in his possession. The law was therefore confined to the abuse of this authority in outbursts of passion, in which case, " if the servant or the maid should die under his hand (i.e., under his blows), he was to be punished "( ינּקם נקם : "vengeance shall surely be taken"). But in what the נקם was to consist is not explained; certainly not in slaying by the sword, as the Jewish commentators maintain. The lawgiver would have expressed this by יוּמת מות . No doubt it was left to the authorities to determine this according to the circumstances. The law in Exo 21:12 could hardly be applied to a case of this description, although it was afterwards extended to foreigners as well as natives (Lev 24:21-22), for the simple reason, that it is hardly conceivable that a master would intentionally kill his slave, who was his possession and money. How far the lawgiver was from presupposing any such intention here, is evident from the law which follows in Exo 21:21, "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two (i.e., remain alive), it shall not be avenged, for he is his money."By the continuance of his life, if only for a day or two, it would become perfectly evident that the master did not wish to kill his servant; and if nevertheless he died after this, the loss of the slave was punishment enough for the master. There is no ground whatever for restricting this regulation, as the Rabbins do, to slaves who were not of Hebrew extraction.

Exo 21:22-25

If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born,

(Note: The words ילדיה ויצאוּare rendered by the lxx καὶ ἐξέλθη τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆς μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον and the corresponding clause יהיה אסון ואםby ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ᾖ ; consequently the translators have understood the words as meaning that the fruit, the premature birth of which was caused by the blow, if not yet developed into a human form, was not to be regarded as in any sense a human being, so that the giver of the blow was only required to pay a pecuniary compensation, - as Philo expresses it, "on account of the injury done to the woman, and because he prevented nature, which forms and shapes a man into the most beautiful being, from bringing him forth alive."But the arbitrary character of this explanation is apparent at once; for ילדonly denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form. In a manner no less arbitrary אסוןhas been rendered by Onkelos and the Rabbins מותא, death, and the clause is made to refer to the death of the mother alone, in opposition to the penal sentence in Exo 21:23, Exo 21:24, which not only demands life for life, but eye for eye, etc., and therefore presupposes not death alone, but injury done to particular members. The omission of להּ, also, apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to injury done to the woman alone.)

a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it בּפללים by (by an appeal to) arbitrators. A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life. (For יצא roF( to go out of the womb, see Gen 25:25-26.) The plural ילדיה is employed for the purpose of speaking indefinitely, because there might possibly be more than one child in the womb. " But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye,...wound for wound: "thus perfect retribution was to be made.

Exo 21:26-27

But the lex talionis applied to the free Israelite only, not to slaves. In the case of the latter, if the master struck out an eye and destroyed it, i.e., blinded him with the blow, or struck out a tooth, he was to let him go free, as a compensation for the loss of the member. Eye and tooth are individual examples selected to denote all the members, from the most important and indispensable down to the very least.

Exo 21:28-30

The life of man is also protected against injury from cattle (cf. Gen 9:5). " If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; "because, as the stoning already shows, it was laden with the guilt of murder, and therefore had become unclean (cf. Num 35:33). The master or owner of the ox was innocent, sc., if his ox had not bee known to do so before. But if this were the case, " if his master have been warned ( בּבעליו הוּעד , lit., testimony laid against its master), and notwithstanding this he have not kept it in, "then the master was to be put to death, because through his carelessness in keeping the ox he had caused the death, and therefore shared the guilt. As this guilt, however, had not been incurred through an intentional crime, but had arisen simply from carelessness, he was allowed to redeem his forfeited life by the payment of expiation money ( כּפר , lit., covering, expiation, cf. Exo 30:12), " according to all that was laid upon him, "sc., by the judge.

Exo 21:31-32

The death of a son or a daughter through the goring of an ox was also to be treated in the same way; but that of a slave (man-servant or maid-servant) was to be compensated by the payment of thirty shekels of silver (i.e., probably the ordinary price for the redemption of a slave, as the redemption price of a free Israelite was fifty shekels, Lev 27:3) on the part of the owner of the ox; but the ox was to be killed in this case also. There are other ancient nations in whose law books we find laws relating to the punishment of animals for killing or wounding a man, but not one of them had a law which made the owner of the animal responsible as well, for they none of them looked upon human life in its likeness of God.

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 21:33-36

Passing from life to property , in connection with the foregoing, the life of the animal, the most important possession of the Israelites, is first of all secured against destruction through carelessness. If any one opened or dug a pit or cistern, and did not close it up again, and another man's ox or ass (mentioned, for the sake of example, as the most important animals among the live stock of the Israelites) fell in and was killed, the owner of the pit was to pay its full value, and the dead animal to belong to him. If an ox that was not known to be vicious gored another man's ox to death, the vicious animal was to be sold, and its money (what it fetched) to be divided; the dead animal was also to be divided, so that both parties bore an equal amount of damage. If, on the other hand, the ox had been known to be vicious before, and had not been kept in, carefully secured, by its possessor, he was to compensate the owner of the one that had been killed with the full value of an ox, but to receive the dead one instead.

Constable: Exo 15:22--Lev 1:1

II. THE ADOPTION OF ISRAEL 15:22--40:38

The second major section of Exodus records the events associated with God's adoption of Israel as His chosen people. Having redeemed Israel out of slavery in Egypt He now made the nation His privileged son. Redemption is the end of one journey but the beginning of another.

Constable: Exo 19:1--24:12

B. The establishment of the Mosaic Covenant 19:1-24:11

The Lord had liberated Israel from bondage in Egypt, but now He adopted the nation into a special relationship with Himself.

"Now begins the most sublime section in the whole Book. The theme of this section is supremely significant, playing a role of decisive importance in the history of Israel and of humanity as a whole."³⁰⁶

At Sinai, Israel received the law and the tabernacle. The law expressed the obedience of God's redeemed people, and the tabernacle expressed their worship. Thus the law and the tabernacle deal with the two major expressions of the faith of the people redeemed by the grace and power of God.

The Mosaic Covenant is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic Covenant in the sense that it was a significant intimate agreement between God and Abraham's descendants. By observing it they could achieve their purpose as a nation. This purpose was to experience God's blessing and to be a blessing to all nations of the earth (Gen. 12:2). In contrast to the Abrahamic Covenant Israel had responsibilities to fulfill to obtain God's promised blessings (v. 5). It was, therefore, a conditional covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant--as well as the Davidic and New Covenants that contain expansions of the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant--was unconditional.

A further contrast is this.

"Whereas the Sinaitic covenant was based on an already accomplished act of grace and issued in stringent stipulations, the patriarchal covenant rested only on the divine promise and demanded of the worshipper only his trust (e.g., ch. 15:6)."³⁰⁷

"The covenant with Israel at Sinai is to bring Israel into a position of mediatorial service."³⁰⁸

"The major difference between the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant is that the former was conditional and also was ad interim, that is, it was a covenant for a limited period, beginning with Moses and ending with Christ. . . .

"In contrast to the other covenants, the Mosaic covenant, though it had provisions for grace and forgiveness, nevertheless builds on the idea that obedience to God is necessary for blessing. While this to some extent is true in every dispensation, the Mosaic covenant was basically a works covenant rather than a grace covenant. The works principle, however, was limited to the matter of blessing in this life and was not related at all to the question of salvation for eternity."³⁰⁹

The Mosaic Covenant is the heart of the Pentateuch.

"First, it should be pointed out that the most prominent event and the most far-reaching theme in the Pentateuch, viewed entirely on its own, is the covenant between Yahweh and Israel established at Mount Sinai. . . .

"1) The author of the Pentateuch wants to draw a connecting link between God's original plan of blessing for mankind and his establishment of the covenant with Israel at Sinai. Put simply, the author sees the covenant at Sinai as God's plan to restore his blessing to mankind through the descendants of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; Exod 2:24).

"2) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that the Covenant at Sinai failed to restore God's blessing to mankind because Israel failed to trust God and obey his will.

"3) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that God's promise to restore the blessing would ultimately succeed because God himself would one day give to Israel a heart to trust and obey God (Deut 30:1-10)."³¹⁰

The writer interrupted the narrative with blocks of other explanatory, qualifying, and cultic material in the chapters that follow.³¹¹

Narrative19:1-3a

Other19:3b-9

Narrative19:10-19a

Other19:19b-25

Narrative20:1-21

Other20:22-23:33

Narrative24:1-18

Other25-31

Narrative32-34

Constable: Exo 20:22--24:1

4. The stipulations of the Book of the Covenant 20:22-23:33

Israel's "Bill of Rights" begins here.

"It is worth noting that the stipulations are enfolded within matching frames that stress the exclusivity of Yahweh (Ex. 20:22-23; cf. 23:24-25, 32-33), His presence in specified places (20:24; cf. 23:14-17, 20, 28-31), and a proper protocol and ritual by which He may be approached by His servant people (20:24-26; cf. 23:18-19). It is within the context of a vertical covenant relationship, then, that the horizontal, societal, and interpersonal relationships of the Book of the Covenant take on their ultimate meaning."³⁴⁸

"The section before us has something to say about each of the ten commandments, even if only incidentally."³⁴⁹

Constable: Exo 21:1--23:13

The fundamental rights of the Israelites 21:1-23:12

It is very important to note that various law codes already existed in the ancient Near East before the giving of the Mosaic Covenant. These included laws in the Akkadian civilization located in Mesopotamia in the twentieth century B.C. (e.g., the Laws of Esnunna).³⁵⁴ There were also the laws in the Sumerian civilization, which replaced that of Akkad in the nineteenth century (e.g., the Code of Lipit-Istar).³⁵⁵ Moreover laws in the Babylonian civilization that followed the Sumerian in the eighteenth century (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi)³⁵⁶ existed, as did others. People living in the Near East at the time of the Exodus (fifteenth century) knew these laws and lived by them. The Mosaic Covenant presupposes this body of legal literature. It was not given as a comprehensive legal system to a people living without any laws. Rather it was a series of instructions God gave as Israel's king for His people to govern their behavior in certain specific matters. This fact explains why the Torah (Law of Moses, lit. instruction) does not contain fundamental instruction in many basic areas of law such as monogamy, for example. The instructions in the Law of Moses confirmed certain existing laws, cancelled other laws, and changed still others for the Israelites as the will of God for them.³⁵⁷

Moses revealed the laws that follow analogically (i.e., on the basis of the association of ideas). Analogical thinking has been more characteristic of eastern cultures and rational thinking more typical of western cultures throughout history generally speaking.

Constable: Exo 21:1

Introduction 21:1

The "ordinances" were not laws in the usual sense of that word but the rights of those living within Israel. The Book of the Covenant (20:22-23:33) was Israel's "Bill of Rights."

"A selection of judgments' is provided as a sample of the divine judgments which Moses gave the people. A total of forty-two judgments' is given.³⁵⁸ The number forty-two apparently stems from the fact that the Hebrew letters in the first word of the section, and these' (w'lh), add up precisely to the number forty-two (7 x 6). (There may also be a desire to have seven laws for each of the six days of work [cf. Ex 20:11]). This suggests that the laws in 21:1-23:12 are to be understood merely as a representative selection of the whole Mosaic Law. It is not an attempt at a complete listing of all the laws. The purpose of the selection was to provide a basis for teaching the nature of divine justice. By studying specific cases of the application of God's will in concrete situations, the reader of the Pentateuch could learn the basic principles undergirding the covenant relationship. Whereas the ten words' provided a general statement of the basic principles of justice which God demanded of his people, the examples selected here further demonstrated how those principles, or ideals, were to be applied to real life situations."³⁵⁹

Constable: Exo 21:2-6

Slavery 21:2-6

21:2-4 The ancients practiced slavery widely in the Near East. These laws protected slaves in Israel better than the laws of other nations protected slaves in those countries.

"In Israel slaves had far better rights than elsewhere in the ancient Near East."³⁶⁰

We should read verse 4 with the following condition added at the end of the verse: unless he pays a ransom for them. This was possible as is clear from the instructions regarding the redemption of people that follow.

Why did God permit slavery at all? Slavery as a social institution becomes evil when others disregard the human rights of slaves. God protected the rights of slaves in Israel. (Likewise Paul did not urge Philemon to set his slave Onesimus free but to treat him as a brother.) As amended by the Torah, slavery became indentured servant living in Israel for all practical purposes, similar to household servanthood in Victorian England. Mosaic law provided that male slaves in Israel should normally serve as slaves no more than a few years and then go free. In other nations, slaves often remained enslaved for life.

"We can then conclude that Exodus 21:2-4 owes nothing to non-Biblical law. Rather it is a statement of belief about the true nature of Israelite society: it should be made up of free men. Economic necessities may lead an Israelite to renounce his true heritage, but his destiny is not in the end to be subject to purely financial considerations. Exodus 21:2 is no ordinary humanitarian provision, but expresses Israel's fundamental understanding of its true identity. No matter how far reality failed to match the ideal, that ideal must be reaffirmed in successive legislation. So, in gradually worsening economic conditions both Deuteronomy (15:1-18) and the Holiness Code (Lev. 25:39-43) reiterate it. It is the male Israelite's right to release (Exod. 21:2-4) which explains why the laws of slavery (21:2-11) head that legislation which sought to come to terms with Israel's new found statehood with all its consequent economic problems under the united monarchy."³⁶¹

Presumably female as well as male slaves could experience redemption from their condition at any time.

21:5-6 The Code of Hammurabi decreed that the master of a rebellious slave could cut off the ear of that slave. So the ear (v. 6) evidently marked the status of a slave in the ancient Near East (cf. Ps. 40:6).

Constable: Exo 21:7-11

Betrothal of a female 21:7-11

Females did not enjoy as much freedom as males in the ancient Near East and in Israel. They were subject to the fathers or husbands in authority over them as well as to God (cf. Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18). Verses 7-11 describe a girl whom her father sells as a servant (Heb. amah, v. 7) for marriage, not for slavery.³⁶² In such a case the girl would become the servant of the father of her husband-to-be who would than give her to his son as his wife. She would remain in her prospective father-in-law's household unless someone redeemed her before the consummation of her marriage. If for some reason her prospective father-in-law became displeased with her, he was to allow someone to redeem her (set her free by the payment of a price). Her redeemer could be herself or someone else (cf. Deut. 24:1). Her master was not to sell her to some other person, a "foreign" person in that sense (v. 8). Such treatment was unfair to her because it violated her legitimate human rights. "Conjugal rights" (v. 10) here refers to her living quarters and other support provisions, not sexual intercourse. This passage is not discussing marriage as such (after physical consummation) as the NIV and AV imply.

Constable: Exo 21:12-17

Homicide 21:12-17

21:12-14 The Torah upheld capital punishment for murder (v. 12), which God commanded of Noah (Gen. 9:6) and people in the Near East practiced from then on. It did not permit capital punishment in the case of manslaughter (unpremeditated murder, v. 13), which the Code of Hammurabi allowed.³⁶³

In the ancient East whoever sought sanctuary in a sacred place was safe from punishment even if he or she had deliberately murdered someone. The Torah removed that protection in the case of murder. God regarded the sanctity of human life greater than the sanctity of a place (v. 4).

21:15-17 The Code of Hammurabi specified that the person who struck his father should have his hands cut off.³⁶⁴ The Torah took a stronger position requiring the death of the person who struck either parent. The reason seems to be that by doing so the striker did not honor his parents but revolted against God's ordained authority over him or her (v. 15; cf. 20:12).

"In the first place age is not a factor in the determining of a delinquent in the ancient Near East: age is never mentioned in the [non-biblical] texts. A minor, for all intents and purposes, was one who was living in his or her parent's house. There he or she has duties and responsibilities which place him directly under the authority of the parent. Responsibility for a minor's behavior rested solely with the parent. Any anti-social act committed by the minor was considered also an offense against the parent who dealt with it accordingly. When proceedings are initiated against a minor, as we shall see, it is the parent, not the courts, who institutes the proceedings. . . .

"In ancient times no provision was made for a minor committing a criminal act, that is, there was no special protection extended to juveniles convicted in criminal cases: the penalty for both an adult and a minor was the same. This represents a striking difference from our judicial system whereby a minor is not held to be as criminally responsible for his conduct as an adult. In effect he is granted a certain amount of protection by the courts, and his sentence is not as severe as an adult's would be in a similar case. It is curious that in the few examples we have of felonies committed by minors in the ancient Near East the opposite situation prevails. A minor receives a more severe sentence than an adult would in a comparable case. . . .

"At this point we should not get too exercised over whether or not these punishments were ever carried out. It is considered today most unlikely that these types of punishments, or talionic punishment in general, were ever put into practice in the ancient Near East.³⁶⁵ What is important here is the severity accorded these offenses in the light of other offenses listed in the same legal corpus. It is most significant that in both cases the assault is against a parent. Assault against another person would subject the minor to a lesser penalty. In Mesopotamian law a minor striking someone other than his parent would not have his hand cut off; depending on his status he would be fined or flogged.³⁶⁶ Likewise, in ancient Israel he would be fined and not subject to the death penalty (Exod. 21:18-19). Thus we have a situation where striking a non-parent makes one subject to regular criminal law, but striking a parent makes one subject to a juvenile delinquent' law which carries a more severe penalty."³⁶⁷

Kidnapping was also a capital offense (v. 16; 20:15; Gen. 37:28) as was cursing (dishonoring) one's parents (v. 17; cf. 20:12). Verse 15 deals with a criminal offense, but verse 17 describes a civil offense (cf. Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16; Prov. 20:20; 30:11). Marcus went on to distinguish this type of offense as follows.

"Turning now to non-criminal acts, civil or status offenses, we review the salient points of the modern definition of a juvenile delinquent as one who is incorrigible, ungovernable, or habitually disobedient. The operative word in most modern definitions is habitual.' An isolated occurrence does not make a child delinquent. Note that the New York State definition speaks of the child as being habitually disobedient,' and the California one terms the delinquent as one who habitually refuses to obey.' We shall see that a number of ancient Near Eastern legal texts make this distinction as well. This is important because it enables us to distinguish what is clearly delinquency from what is only what we call generation gap' disagreements. The ancients were well aware of this generation gap between parents and children."³⁶⁸

All of these crimes worthy of death (in vv. 12-17) were serious in God's eyes. They either violated a basic right of a human being created in God's image or were expressions of rebellion against God's revealed authority in the home, the basic unit of society.

"Life, in essence, is the property of God; the possession of it is leased to human beings for a number of years. This lease can be extended or contracted in accordance with God's will. (Cf. 1 Kings 21:27-29; 2 Kings 20:1-6; Job 1:12-19.) When a man arrogates to himself the right of ownership in the life of human beings and interferes with the right of enjoyment of life by taking it away--that is, killing it--he has violated one of the essential laws of God and therefore forfeits his own right to the possession of life."³⁶⁹

Constable: Exo 21:18-32

Bodily injuries 21:18-32

Moses cited five cases in this section, as was true in the preceding one (vv. 12-17).

21:18-19 The Torah made no distinction in the penalty an aggressor paid because of his intent (vv. 18-28). The inferior Hammurabi Code did by permitting the assailant to pay less damage if he claimed no intent to cause injury.³⁷⁰

21:20-21 As other people, slaves also enjoyed protection from murderers (v. 20; cf. v. 12). However the slave owner likewise experienced protection from execution if his punishment of a slave was not the direct cause of the slave's death. In this case the law regarded the loss of the slave as sufficient punishment of the master (v. 21).

21:22 Manslaughter of an unborn child carried a fine (v. 22). The reason seems to have rested on two assumptions. First, accidental killing is not as serious a crime as deliberate killing. Second, a fetus, though a human life, does not have the same status as a self-sufficient human being.³⁷¹

Pro-abortion advocates frequently appeal to Exodus 21:22 to support their claim that a fetus is not a person and, therefore, abortion is not murder.

"In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is not considered a person. If the fetus were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman--death. Abortion, then, is not murder."³⁷²

However other Scriptures present the fetus as a person, a real human being (Job 10:8-12; 15:14; Ps. 51:5; 58:3; 139:13-16; Eccles. 11:5; Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15). This was the prevailing opinion in the ancient Near East as well.³⁷³

In contrast to other ancient Near Eastern law codes, the Torah made no differentiation on the basis of the woman's social class. It treated all equally. Also only the man who caused the injury was liable, not other members of his family who could suffer punishment for his offense and often did in other ancient Near Eastern societies. Principles explained elsewhere in the Torah determined the penalty the guilty party had to pay.³⁷⁴

21:23-25 God intended the "eye for eye" provision to limit punishment rather than giving free reign to it. The law of retaliation (lex talionis) became common in the ancient Near East. It sought to control the tendency of someone who had only suffered a minor injury to take major revenge. For example, a man might kill the person who beat up his brother (cf. Gen. 4:23). God forbade such excessive vengeance among His people, however, and limited them so that they should only exact equal payment for offenses committed against them and no more.

"This law of the talion, for a long time thought to be a more primitive kind of penalty, the reflection of a barbaric law form, has been shown by more recent comparative studies to be a later development, designed to remedy the inevitable abuses made possible by monetary payment for physical injury."³⁷⁵

"According to Num. xxxv 31 it is only from a willful murderer that it is forbidden to accept ransom [payment in place of punishment]; this implies that in all other instances the taking of a ransom is permitted. . . .

"This being so, the meaning here in our paragraph of the expression life for life [ v. 23] is that the one who hurts the woman accidentally shall be obliged to pay her husband the value of her life if she dies, and of her children if they die."³⁷⁶

21:26-27 In contrast to verse 27, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed that in such a case the offender had to pay the slave's master half the price of the slave.³⁷⁷ If a master blinded his own slave, this code required no penalty. The Torah shows greater concern for the slave. This law would have discouraged masters from physically abusing their slaves.

21:28-32 The Hammurabi Code specified the death of the son of the owner of the ox if the ox killed the son of another man (v. 31).³⁷⁸ The Torah required the owner's life or a ransom (v. 30). Note, too, that verses 31 and 32 value the lives of male and female slaves the same. The value of an adult slave under the Torah was 30 shekels of silver (cf. Matt. 26:15). Under the Code of Hammurabi it was 1/3 of a mina of silver (about 17 shekels).³⁷⁹ The ox also died by stoning. In this way God taught His people that they should view even slaves as created in His image (cf. Gen. 9:5). The goring ox (vv. 28-32) is the typical example of death caused by cattle or domestic animals.

"The fate of the ox gives clear evidence of the theological principle of the subordination of the animal world to human sovereignty. That the fatal goring of one ox by another required only compensation shows the relative insignificance of the animal-to-animal relationship (vv. 35-36)."³⁸⁰

Constable: Exo 21:33--22:16

Property damage 21:33-22:15

21:33-34 The pit represents a typical case of damage caused by an inanimate object or natural phenomenon. These specific cases doubtless served as precedents for other similar cases.

21:35-36 The law concerning a cattle fight is the same as one in the Laws of Esnunna, a twentieth century B.C. Akkadian law code.³⁸¹ However the Torah differentiated between an ox that gored habitually and one that did not in the case of one ox goring another. Thus the Torah showed higher regard for the rights and responsibilities of individuals.

22:1-4 According to the Code of Hammurabi a thief should die if he could not repay what he had stolen³⁸² or if he stole by breaking in.³⁸³ The Torah modified this law by annulling the death penalty and substituting the penalty of being sold into slavery in the first case. In the second case it annulled the death penalty and protected the life of the victim. Verses 1 and 4 of chapter 22 go together and deal with theft generally. The reason for the fivefold and fourfold penalties appears to be that the thief was taking the means of another person's livelihood.³⁸⁴ Verses 2 and 3, which deal with breaking and entering, address a special type of theft. Perhaps the law assumed that the thief's intent was murder as well as theft if he broke in at night but only theft if he broke in in daylight. If so, we might assume that if his intentions turned out to have been otherwise, the law would deal with him accordingly. The text gives only the typical case. Perhaps the logic was that at night the victim's life was in greater danger so the law allowed him to use more force in resisting his assailant than in the daytime.

22:5-6 The fourth case involves damage due to grazing or burning. In the first case (v. 5) the Torah required restitution from "the best" of the offender whereas the Code of Hammurabi required only restitution.³⁸⁵ These two cases further illustrate God's respect for the rights of others.

22:7-15 Next we have four cases involving property held in custody. In the Hammurabi Code the penalty for losing or allowing a thief to steal what someone else had committed to one's trust was death³⁸⁶ as was falsely accusing someone of this crime.³⁸⁷ The Torah required only twofold payment in both situations (v. 9).

Second, if what someone entrusted to his neighbor for safe keeping perished by accident (vv. 10-13) the neighbor was not responsible to make restitution. This was the law under the Code of Hammurabi too.³⁸⁸

Third, if someone borrowed something and it then suffered damage or it died (v. 14-15a) the borrower was responsible to make restitution. This was the case unless the owner (lender) was present when the damage or death took place. In that case the lender was responsible for his own property.

Fourth, if someone rented something and then damaged it or it died (v. 15b) the borrower was not responsible to make restitution since the fee he had paid covered his liability. The Code of Hammurabi specified no liability in either of these last two cases.³⁸⁹

Guzik: Exo 21:1-36 - Laws To Direct Judges

Exodus 21 - Laws To Direct Judges

A. Laws regarding servitude.

1. (1) These are the judgments.

"Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them:

a. Which you shall set before them: These next three chapters present laws establishing precedent for the legal system of Israel, the judges appointed by Moses.

2. (2-4) The general law concerning Hebrew slaves (indentured servants).

"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.

a. If you buy a Hebrew servant: "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." (Chadwick)

b. A Hebrew servant: There were four basic ways a Hebrew might become a slave to another Hebrew.

· In extreme poverty, they might sell their liberty (Leviticus 25:39).

· A father might sell his children into servitude (Exodus 21:7).

· In the case of bankruptcy, a man might become servant to his creditors (2 Kings 4:1).

· If a thief had nothing with which to pay proper restitution (Exodus 22:3-4).

c. He shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing: In such cases, the servitude was never obligated to be life-long. The Hebrew servant worked for six years and then was set free. At the end of the six years, 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 or be redeemed.

3. (5-6) 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. 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.

a. But if the servant plainly says, "I love my master": 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.

i. This commitment was not motivated by debt or obligation, only by love for the master.

b. His master shall pierce his ear with an awl: In the ceremony, the servant's ear would be pierced - opened - with an awl, in the presence of witnesses - then, he shall serve him for ever.

i. Psalms 40:6 speaks of this ceremony taking place between the Father and the Son, where the Psalmist spoke prophetically for the Messiah: Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; my ears You have opened. Jesus was a perfect bond-slave to the Father (Philippians 2:7).

c. He shall serve him forever: Jesus gave us the right to be called friends instead of servants (John 15:15). Yet the writers of the New Testament found plenty of glory in simply being considered bondservants of Jesus (Romans 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1:1).

i. Pagans had a custom of branding the slave with the name or the sign of the owner. Paul referred to himself as just such a slave in Galatians 6:17: From now on, let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Paul was a slave for life to Jesus.

4. (7-11) The rights of female maid-servants.

"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 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. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

a. If a man sells his daughter to be a female slave: The maid-servant was bought, but not really to be a slave, but to be the master's wife or the wife of the master's son one day.

b. 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.

c. He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights: The idea of women - and women of lower classes - having such rights, respected by God and society was revolutionary in an age when women were usually regarded as property.

B. Laws regarding violence and disability.

1. (12-14) Appropriate punishment for both murder and manslaughter.

"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 neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.

a. He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death: 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 wield the sword of execution is also stated in the New Testament (Romans 13:3-4).

b. If he did not lie in wait . . . if a man acts with premeditation: The issue is clearly one of premeditation and treachery. God did not place crimes of passion or neglect on the same plane as crimes of premeditation and treachery.

c. You shall take him from My altar, that he may die: The principle of punishing murderers is so important to God that He denied murderers refuge at His altar.

i. God said also that unpunished murderers defiled the land: Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death . . . So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel. (Numbers 35:31, 33-34)

ii. Therefore, there must be no mercy towards the "first-degree" murderer. You shall take him from My altar, that he may die refers to a practice common among many pagan cultures, where a criminal - even a murderer - could find refuge at the altar of a god, and as long as he stayed in the temple, he was given sanctuary. God here says that even if a first-degree murderer comes to His altar, he is to be punished.

d. Then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee: Later (Numbers 35 and Joshua 20) God commanded and Israel made cities of refuge - a place where he may flee - cities where one could flee in a case of manslaughter, and be protected until his case was properly heard.

2. (15-17) Laws concerning murder of a parent.

"And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

a. He who strikes his father or mother: Strikes must be taken in the context of Exodus 21:12, which says He who strikes a man so that he dies. A child who murders, or attempts the murder of a parent, is to receive capital punishment.

b. 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.

c. He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: The idea is of an adult child who threatens their parent. Though this law is severe, it preserves a critical foundation for civilized society: respect between generations.

i. It also has a built-in protection for the rights of the child, according to Deuteronomy 21:18-21. This passage states that the parent did not have the right to carry out this punishment, but they had to bring the accused child before the elders and judges of the city. 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.

ii. Yet the law discouraging conflict between generations is important. The 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.

iii. Unfortunately, modern euthanasia laws allow murder of the older generation by the younger generation - all approved by law.

3. (18-19) Regarding compensation for personal injury.

"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.

a. If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other: If, because of a conflict, a man is unable to work (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.

b. If he rises again and walks about outside with his staff: However, if the man can recover from the injury, the guilty party was only required to pay for his medical recovery and for his lost time.

c. And shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed: Though these principles have been abused by the greedy in our modern day, the principles themselves still stand.

4. (20-21) 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.

a. So that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished: This shows that in ancient Israel servants could be "murdered." In other cultures, the master was held blameless if he murdered a servant, because the servant was not considered a person.

b. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished: Yet the master not be punished if the servant did not die immediately. Perhaps this is 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.

i. If the slave died, the loss of property was thought to be penalty enough to the master.

c. He shall surely be punished . . . he is his property: These laws together paint a picture of the ideas behind slavery in ancient Israel. A servant was a person (who could not be murdered), yet they were also considered the property of the master.

i. Spiritually speaking, we are the property of whom we serve. We are either slaves to Satan or to Jesus Christ.

5. (22-25) 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.

a. 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 is injured in a conflict, and she gives birth prematurely. A penalty is only to be assessed if there is lasting damage.

i. If no lasting damage results, there are no damages awarded. Here, God recognizes that some bad things just happen, and we get over them - and move on.

b. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye: If lasting damage results, retribution is always limited by the eye for an eye principle. This law was meant to block our desire for vengeance, and not given as a license for revenge.

i. Our tendency is to want to do more to the offending party than what they have done 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.

6. (26-27) The law of retribution as it regards masters and servants.

"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. 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.

a. 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: The principle of eye for an eye has a different application for servants. The servant, if injured by the master, received something more precious than an eye - his freedom.

b. If he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free: "If this did not teach them humanity, it taught them caution, as one rash blow might have deprived them of all right to the future services of the slave; and this self-interest obliged them to be cautious and circumspect." (Clarke)

C. Laws regarding animal control and damage.

1. (28-32) Determining guilt when an animal kills a human.

"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. 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. If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. 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.

a. The ox shall surely be stoned . . . but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted: This law illustrates the principle of intent and neglect. An owner of a man-killing ox cannot be held guilty if the animal had no history of aggression towards people - yet the animal must die, and the owner is forbidden to profit from the animal or its death (its flesh shall not be eaten).

b. But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past . . . the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death: Yet, if an ox owner has an ox whom he knows to be aggressive, and he fails to control the animal, he shall be held guilty of murder and punished as such.

c. If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life: It seems that if the survivors of the dead man accepted monetary restitution in lieu of the owner's death, this was an acceptable settlement.

d. Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him: The same principles must be applied even if a minor is killed. They were regard as people with rights to respect as well as adults.

e. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver: If a servant was killed under such circumstances, the price of restitution was thirty shekels of silver, which was considered the price of a slave.

i. Significantly, this was the same price Jesus was "sold" for. Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:15).

2. (33-36) More laws giving the principle of negligence and restitution.

"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, the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his. 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. 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.

a. He shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his: These laws communicate the principle of "you-break-it-you-bought-it." If your negligence resulted in the death of your neighbor's animal, you were obligated to recompense your neighbor.

b. 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: These laws required the investigation and analysis of judges, so that the application of the law took into account findings of intent and negligence. There is a sense in which these are simply amplifications of the principle, "do what is fair."

© 2004 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Tafsiran/Catatan -- Lainnya

Evidence: Exo 21:5-6

"The slavery which existed among the ancient Jews was a very different thing from that which has disgraced humanity in modern times. . . ..[The slave then] was quite free to leave his master's house and go whither he pleased. But it seems that the servitude was so exceedingly light, and, indeed, was so much for the benefit of the person in it, that frequently he would not go free. They preferred to continue as they were, servants to their masters." Charles Spurgeon

The sinner, upon conversion, becomes a servant of Jesus Christ. He presents his body as a living sacrifice. His ear is forever open to the door of the Savior (see John 10:9). He hears His voice (see John 10:3).

Pendahuluan / Garis Besar

JFB: Exodus (Pendahuluan Kitab)

EXODUS, a "going forth," derives its name from its being occupied principally with a relation of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and the incidents that immediately preceded as well as followed that memorable migration. Its authorship by Moses is distinctly asserted by himself (Exo 24:4), as well as by our Lord (Mar 12:26; Luk 20:37). Besides, the thorough knowledge it exhibits of the institutions and usages of the ancient Egyptians and the minute geographical details of the journey to Sinai, establish in the clearest manner the authenticity of this book.

JFB: Exodus (Garis Besar)

• INCREASE OF THE ISRAELITES. (Exo. 1:1-22)
• BIRTH AND PRESERVATION OF MOSES. (Exo 2:1-10) there went a man of the house of Levi, &c. Amram was the husband and Jochebed the wife (compare Exo 6:20; Num 26:59). The marriage took place, and two children, Miriam and Aaron, were born some years before the infanticidal edict.
• HIS SYMPATHY WITH THE HEBREWS. (Exo 2:11-25)
• DIVINE APPEARANCE AND COMMISSION TO MOSES. (Exo. 3:1-22)
• MIRACULOUS CHANGE OF THE ROD, &c. (Exo. 4:1-31)
• FIRST INTERVIEW WITH PHARAOH. (Exo. 5:1-23)
• RENEWAL OF THE PROMISE. (Exo 6:1-13)
• THE GENEALOGY OF MOSES. (Exo. 6:14-30)
• SECOND INTERVIEW WITH PHARAOH. (Exo. 7:1-25)
• PLAGUE OF FROGS. (Exo 8:1-15)
• PLAGUE OF LICE. (Exo 8:16-19)
• PLAGUE OF FLIES. (Exo 8:20-32)
• MURRAIN OF BEASTS. (Exo 9:1-7)
• PLAGUE OF BOILS. (Exo 9:8-17)
• PLAGUE OF HAIL. (Exo. 9:18-35)
• PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS. (Exo. 10:1-20)
• PLAGUE OF DARKNESS. (Exo 10:21-29)
• DEATH OF THE FIRST-BORN THREATENED. (Exo 11:1-10)
• THE PASSOVER INSTITUTED. (Exo 12:1-10)
• THE RITE OF THE PASSOVER. (Exo 12:11-14)
• UNLEAVENED BREAD. (Exo. 12:15-51)
• THE FIRST-BORN SANCTIFIED. (Exo 13:1-2)
• MEMORIAL OF THE PASSOVER. (Exo 13:3-10)
• FIRSTLINGS OF BEASTS. (Exo 13:11-16)
• JOURNEY FROM EGYPT. (Exo 13:17-21)
• GOD INSTRUCTS THE ISRAELITES AS TO THEIR JOURNEY. (Exo. 14:1-31)
• SONG OF MOSES. (Exo. 15:1-27)
• MURMURS FOR WANT OF BREAD. (Exo. 16:1-36)
• THE PEOPLE MURMUR FOR WATER. (Exo 17:1-7)
• ATTACK OF AMALEK. (Exo 17:8-16)
• VISIT OF JETHRO. (Exo. 18:1-27)
• ARRIVAL AT SINAI. (Exo. 19:1-25)
• THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. (Exo. 20:1-26)
• LAWS FOR MENSERVANTS. (Exo 21:1-6)
• LAWS FOR MAIDSERVANTS. (Exo. 21:7-36)
• LAWS CONCERNING THEFT. (Exo. 22:1-31)
• LAWS CONCERNING SLANDER, &c. (Exo. 23:1-33)
• DELIVERY OF THE LAW AND COVENANT. (Exo. 24:1-18)
• CONCERNING AN OFFERING. (Exo. 25:1-40)
• TEN CURTAINS. (Exo. 26:1-37)
• ALTAR FOR BURNT OFFERING. (Exo. 27:1-21)
• APPOINTMENT TO THE PRIESTHOOD. (Exo. 28:1-43)
• CONSECRATING THE PRIESTS AND THE ALTAR. (Exo. 29:1-35)
• CONSECRATION OF THE ALTAR. (Exo 29:36-37)
• INSTITUTION OF DAILY SERVICE. (Exo 29:38-46)
• THE ALTAR OF INCENSE. (Exo. 30:1-38)
• BEZALEEL AND AHOLIAB. (Exo. 31:1-18)
• THE GOLDEN CALF. (Exo. 32:1-35)
• THE LORD REFUSES TO GO WITH THE PEOPLE. (Exo. 33:1-23)
• THE TABLES ARE RENEWED. (Exo. 34:1-35)
• CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TABERNACLE. (Exo. 35:1-35)
• OFFERINGS DELIVERED TO THE WORKMEN. (Exo. 36:1-38)
• FURNITURE OF THE TABERNACLE. (Exo. 37:1-29)
• FURNITURE OF THE TABERNACLE. (Exo. 38:1-31)
• GARMENTS OF THE PRIESTS. (Exo. 39:1-43)
• THE TABERNACLE REARED AND ANOINTED. (Exo. 40:1-38)

TSK: Exodus (Pendahuluan Kitab)

The title of this Book is derived from the Septuagint; in which it is called ΕΞΟΔΟΣ , " Exodus;" or, as it is in the Codex Alexandrinus, ΕΞΟΔΟΣ Αιγυπτου , " the Exodus or departure from Egypt;" but it is called in Hebrew Bibles ואלה שׁמות , Weelleh Shemoth , " these are the names," or merely, שׁמות , Shemoth , " names," from the words with which it commences.

Moses was undoubtedly the author of this Book, which forms a continuation of the preceding, and was evidently written after the promulgation of the law. it embraces the history of about 145 years. Moses, having in the Book of Genesis described the creation of the world, the origin of nations, and the peopling of the earth, details in the Book of Exodus the commencement and nature of the Jewish Church and Polity, which has very properly been termed a Theocracy (Θεοκρατια , from Θεος [Strong’s 2316], God, and κρατεω [Strong’s 2902], to rule), in which Jehovah appears not merely as their Creator and God, but as their King. Hence this and the following books of Moses are not purely historical; but contain not only laws for the regulation of their moral conduct and the rites and ceremonies of their religious worship, but judicial and political laws relating to government and civil life. The stupendous facts connected with these events, may be clearly perceived by consulting the marginal references; and many of the circumstances are confirmed by the testimony of heathen writers. Numenius, a Pythagorean philosopher, mentioned by Eusebius, speaks of the opposition of the magicians, whom he calls Jannes and Jambres, to the miracles of Moses. Though the names of these magicians are not preserved in the Sacred Text, yet tradition had preserved them in the Jewish records, from which St. Paul (2Ti 3:8) undoubtedly quotes. Add to this that many of the notions of the heathen respecting the appearance of the Deity, and their religious institutions and laws, were borrowed from this book; and many of their fables were nothing more than distorted traditions of those events which are here plainly related by Moses.

TSK: Exodus 21 (Pendahuluan Pasal)

Overview

Exo 21:1, Laws for men servants; Exo 21:5, For the servant whose ear is bored; Exo 21:7, For women servants; Exo 21:12, For manslaughter; Exo 21:16, For stealers of men; Exo 21:17, For cursers of parents; Exo 21:18, For smiters; Exo 21:22, For a hurt by chance; Exo 21:28, For an ox that gores; Exo 21:33, For him that is an occasion of harm.

Poole: Exodus (Pendahuluan Kitab)

SECOND BOOK OF MOSES CALLED EXODUS.

THE ARGUMENT.

AFTER the death of Joseph, who had sent for his father’ s house into Egypt, the children of Israel exceedingly multiplied, notwithstanding Pharaoh’ s cruel oppressing of them; from under which God, hearing their cry, brought them with a strong hand. Wherefore this book is called by the Greeks EXODUS, i.e. a going forth; containing an historical account of passages for about one hundred and forty years; with the wonderful raising up of Moses, who, together with Aaron, were to be instruments of their deliverance; and accordingly, after the inflicting ten dreadful plagues upon Pharaoh, brought them into the wilderness through the Red Sea, wherein Pharaoh (his heart being hardened under all these plagues) and all his host pursuing of them were drowned; God having first instituted the passover, as an abiding sacrament to bring to their remembrance in after-times this great deliverance.

In their conduct through the wilderness, God gave them the signal mark of his presence in the pillar of a cloud, and the pillar of fire; who, notwithstanding their great and reiterated murmurings, gave them food, both bread and flesh from heaven, and drink out of the rock; and when they were come to Mount Sinai, he there gave them the moral law, beside other both politic and ecclesiastical ordinances. Afterwards, the breaking of the tables being occasioned by the idolatry of the golden calf, God graciously renewed his covenant with them. There being also a tabernacle, and ark, and other things to be made by God’ s command, the bounty of the people, in order to the making and furnishing thereof, is here set down; which, being finished, the tabernacle is anointed, and filled with the glory of God.

Poole: Exodus 21 (Pendahuluan Pasal)

CHAPTER 21

Law concerning bond-men or slaves, Exo 21:1-5 . Servants bored through the ear, Exo 21:6 . Ordinances for bond-women, Exo 21:7-11 . Of murderers, Exo 21:12 . Of them that curse their parents, Exo 21:17 . Of strikers, Exo 21:18,19 . Of them that hurt a woman with child, Exo 21:22-25 . Of a master of a family that strikes out an eye or tooth of his man or maid servant, Exo 21:26,27 . Of a pushing ox, Exo 21:29 . Of them that hurt their neighbour’ s ox by digging a pit, Exo 21:33 . Of one ox killing another, Exo 21:35,36 .

Or, the judicial laws , by which thou and the judges before mentioned shall govern thyself and the people in civil and criminal causes.

MHCC: Exodus (Pendahuluan Kitab)

The Book of Exodus relates the forming of the children of Israel into a church and a nation. We have hitherto seen true religion shown in domestic life, now, we begin to trace its effects upon the concerns of kingdoms and nations. Exodus signifies " the departure;" the chief event therein recorded is the departure of Israel from Egypt and Egyptian bondage; it plainly points out the fulfilling of several promises and prophecies to Abraham respecting his seed, and shadows forth the state of the church, in the wilderness of this world, until her arrival at the heavenly Canaan, an eternal rest.

MHCC: Exodus 21 (Pendahuluan Pasal)

(Exo 21:1-11) Laws respecting servants.

(Exo 21:12-21) Judicial laws.

(Exo 21:22-36) Judicial laws.

Matthew Henry: Exodus (Pendahuluan Kitab)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Second Book of Moses, Called Exodus

Moses (the servant of the Lord in writing for him as well as in acting for him - with the pen of God as well as with the rod of God in his hand) having, in the first book of his history, preserved and transmitted the records of the church, while it existed in private families, comes, in this second book, to give us an account of its growth into a great nation; and, as the former furnishes us with the best economics, so this with the best politics. The beginning of the former book shows us how God formed the world for himself; the beginning of this shows us how he formed Israel for himself, and both show forth his praise, Isa 43:21. There we have the creation of the world in history, here the redemption of the world in type. The Greek translators called this book Exodus (which signifies a departure or going out ) because it begins with the story of the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt. Some allude to the names of this and the foregoing book, and observe that immediately after Genesis, which signifies the beginning or original, follows Exodus, which signifies a departure; for a time to be born is immediately succeeded by a time to die. No sooner have we made our entrance into the world than we must think of making our exit, and going out of the world. When we begin to live we begin to die. The forming of Israel into a people was a new creation. As the earth was, in the beginning, first fetched from under water, and then beautified and replenished, so Israel was first by an almighty power made to emerge out of Egyptian slavery, and then enriched with God's law and tabernacle. This book gives us, I. The accomplishment of the promises made before to Abraham (ch. 1-19), and then, II. The establishment of the ordinances which were afterwards observed by Israel (ch. 20-40). Moses, in this book, begins, like Caesar, to write his own Commentaries; nay, a greater, a far greater, than Caesar is here. But henceforward the penman is himself the hero, and gives us the history of those things of which he was himself an eye and ear-witness, et quorum pars magna fuit - and in which he bore a conspicuous part. There are more types of Christ in this book than perhaps in any other book of the Old Testament; for Moses wrote of him, Joh 5:46. The way of man's reconciliation to God, and coming into covenant and communion with him by a Mediator, is here variously represented; and it is of great use to us for the illustration of the New Testament, now that we have that to assist us in the explication of the Old.

Matthew Henry: Exodus 21 (Pendahuluan Pasal)

The laws recorded in this chapter relate to the fifth and sixth commandments; and though they are not accommodated to our constitution, especially in point of servitude, nor are the penalties annexed binding on us, yet they are of great use for the explanation of the moral law, and the rules of natural justice. Here are several enlargements, I. Upon the fifth commandment, which concerns particular relations. 1. The duty of masters towards their servants, their men-servants (Exo 21:2-6), and the maidservants (Exo 21:7-11). 2. The punishment of disobedient children that strike their parents (Exo 21:15), or curse them (Exo 21:17). II. Upon the sixth commandment, which forbids all violence offered to the person of a man. Here is, 1. Concerning murder (Exo 21:12-14). 2. Man-stealing (Exo 21:16). 3. Assault and battery (Exo 21:18, Exo 21:19). 4. Correcting a servant (Exo 21:20, Exo 21:21). 5. Hurting a woman with child (Exo 21:22, Exo 21:23). 6. The law of retaliation (Exo 21:24, Exo 21:25). 7. Maiming a servant (Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27). 8. An ox goring (Exo 21:28-32). 9. Damage by opening a pit (Exo 21:33, Exo 21:34). 10. Cattle fighting (Exo 21:35, Exo 21:36).

Constable: Exodus (Pendahuluan Kitab)

Introduction

Title

The Hebrew title of this book (we'elleh shemot) originated from the ancient practice of naming a Bible book after its first word or words. "Now these are the names of" is the translation of the first two Hebrew words.

"The Hebrew title of the Book of Exodus, therefore, was to remind us that Exodus is the sequel to Genesis and that one of its purposes is to continue the history of God's people as well as elaborate further on the great themes so nobly introduced in Genesis."¹

Exodus cannot stand alone. It would not make much sense without Genesis. The very first word of the book, translated "now," is a conjunction that means "and."

The English title "Exodus" is a transliteration of the Greek word exodos from the Septuagint translation meaning "exit," "way out," or "departure." The Septuagint translators gave the book this title because of the major event in it, namely, the Israelites' departure from Egypt.

"The exodus is the most significant historical and theological event of the Old Testament . . ."²

Date and Writer

Moses, who lived from about 1525 to 1405 B.C., wrote Exodus. He could have written it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit any time after the events recorded (after about 1444 B.C.). He may have written it during the year the Israelites camped at the base of Mt. Sinai. He may have done so during the 38-year period of wandering in the wilderness following the Israelites' failure to enter the land from Kadesh Barnea (cf. Num. 13-14; ca. 1443-1405 B.C.). On the other hand he may have written it on the plains of Moab just before his death (cf. 16:35).³

Scope

Exodus embraces about 431 years of history, from the arrival of Jacob and his family in Egypt (ca. 1876 B.C.) to the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness of Sinai (ca. 1445 B.C.). However 1:1-7 is a review of Jacob's family. If we eliminate this section, the narrative resumes the story of the Israelites where Genesis ends, after the death of Joseph. About 364 years elapsed between the death of Joseph and the building of the tabernacle. The bulk of the book (chs. 3-40) deals with only two of these years, the year before and the year after the Exodus from Egypt. The Exodus event is clearly the focus of this book.

The Israelites lived in Egypt 430 years (12:40). Genesis 15:13 has the round number 400 years as the time of Israel's oppression in Egypt.⁴

Purpose

"The purpose of the Book of Exodus is to celebrate God's gracious deliverance of His chosen people Israel from Egyptian slavery to the freedom of covenant relationship and fellowship with Him."⁵

Importance

"No other biblical book surfaces elsewhere in the OT as frequently as the Book of Exodus does; in the NT only the Books of Psalms and Isaiah are cited more, and that for the fairly obvious reasons of liturgy and messianism."⁶

Message⁷

The great contribution of this book is the revelation that Yahweh is the sovereign God who provides deliverance for man from the slavery in which he finds himself.

The major teaching of Exodus is primarily threefold.

1. The sovereignty of God.

2. The salvation of man.

3. The methods by which the sovereign God affects man's salvation.

First, Exodus teaches the sovereignty of God.

In Genesis we learned that the only way we can realize the purpose for which God created us is through faith in a trustworthy God that expresses itself in obedience.

In Exodus we learn that the God with whom we can have a relationship is not only trustworthy but sovereign. This realization should produce within us the double effect of worship and obedience.

Sovereignty is the attribute of God that expresses the fact that Yahweh is the ultimate ruler of the universe. There is no one higher in authority than He. As sovereign, He has all power. Sovereignty does not refer to how God rules, the method by which He governs. In particular, it does not imply that God controls every detail of life immediately (directly). God exercises His sovereignty by allowing human beings certain freedoms. He does not control us like puppets on strings but as a father controls his children. We have limited freedom.

We can see God's sovereignty clearly in His superiority over all the so-called gods of Egypt. He displayed His great power in all of His activity that resulted in the liberation of the Israelites and His adoption of them as His people. Scripture teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. No one has been able to explain this mystery adequately (cf. Job).

Second, Exodus teaches the salvation of man.

In Genesis we saw the need for salvation (i.e., the Fall and the repeated failures of man).

In Exodus, God revealed the method of salvation and explained the consequences of salvation initially.

Exodus teaches that God provides salvation for man. Man does not provide it for himself. It also reveals that man appropriates what God has provided by faith.

Two activities become prominent as major expressions of faith in Exodus: worship and obedience. Worship and obedience are the Godward and the manward expressions of faith respectively.

Worship consists of putting God at the center of life (cf. Rom. 12:1-2). Worship was to characterize the Israelites nationally and personally. God illustrated the importance of placing Him at the center of life by locating the ark of the covenant in the center of the tabernacle. He further did so by placing the tabernacle in the center of the Israelite camp.

Obedience consists of arranging all the parts of life in proper relation to God who is at the center. If something in life does not orient toward God properly, there is disobedience. In this way Exodus deepens the revelation concerning obedience that God has given us in Genesis.

Third, Exodus teaches the methods by which the sovereign God affects man's salvation.

God's method of dealing with the human race generally (outside Israel) was by creating a pattern, namely, the nation of Israel. God created the nation of Israel so that He could demonstrate through Israel for all other nations and peoples to see how glorious it can be to live under God's government. God's election of Israel was not the selection of a pet that God would favor at the expense of all others. It was the construction of a pattern. Israel was to be a demonstration to all the world of how wonderful life can be under the rule of Yahweh (cf. 19:5-6).

God's method of dealing with Israel was by revealing a person, namely, Himself. In many revelations to the Israelites, God sought to deepen their understanding of and appreciation for Himself and His will. The special privilege of receiving the revelation was a blessing to them and should have resulted in their being a blessing to the whole world. Israel was to do this by demonstrating how good it is to live under God's kingship. Some of the most important revelations occur in the following passages: 3:4-16; 6:2-8; 19:3-6; 20:1-7; 24:1, 9-11; 34:5-8; and 40:34-35. They are not all different, but God intended them to have the cumulative effect of deepening the Israelites' concept of God. They came to the people like waves beating on the shore. All the details of the Mosaic Code, which begins in Exodus and continues through Numbers, reinforce the main point of this revelation, which is the character of God.

God's method of dealing with individuals was by providing opportunities, choices.

We can see this most easily in God's dealing with the two major characters in Exodus, Moses and Pharaoh. God's method of dealing with both men was the same, but their responses were different and consequently so were their fates.

Pharaoh was a strong, wise leader who acted wholly by sight rather than by faith in Yahweh. He is typical of people of the world. God's method of dealing with him was to give him opportunities to make the right choices and so experience the blessing of God. Pharaoh chose not to trust God, and his disobedience resulted in personal tragedy for himself and national tragedy for Egypt.

Moses on the other hand was also a strong, wise leader, but he acted by faith rather than by sight (Heb. 11:27). God's method of dealing with him in Exodus was the same. He gave him opportunities to make the right choices and so experience God's blessing. Moses chose to trust and obey God, and his life is a story of personal triumph and national triumph for Israel.

In both cases God patiently worked with these representative individuals and gently encouraged them to do His will. Moses developed into a noble character because he chose to submit to God's government even though he was faulty, failing, and fearful. Pharaoh was a more admirable person in many respects, but he sank into destruction because he chose to refuse to submit to God's government (authoritative rule).

Exodus teaches that individuals are personally responsible under God, and their choices determine their destinies. There is ample New Testament evidence for this in John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31; et al. Divine sovereignty does not negate human responsibility.

If we look at the record of God's activity in Exodus, we see progress. The unbelief of His enemies does not frustrate Him. His ultimate purposes for Israel came to fruition.

However if we look at the record of man's activity in this book, we see failure. Even Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites who trusted God constantly failed. We observed this in the lives of the characters in Genesis as well.

While man constantly falls short of what God requires, human failure does not frustrate God's ultimate purposes. This proves that God is indeed sovereign.

Constable: Exodus (Garis Besar)

Outline

I. The liberation of Israel 1:1-15:21

A. God's preparation of Israel and Moses chs. 1-4

1. The growth of Jacob's family 1:1-7

2. The Israelites' bondage in Egypt 1:8-22

3. Moses' birth and education 2:1-10

4. Moses' flight from Egypt to Midian 2:11-15

5. Moses' life in Midian 2:16-25

6. Moses' call 3:1-4:18

7. Moses' return to Egypt 4:19-31

B. God's demonstrations of His sovereignty chs. 5-11

1. Pharaoh's response to Moses and Aaron's initial request 5:1-6:1

2. Moses and Aaron's equipment as God's messengers 6:2-7:7

3. The attestation of Moses and Aaron's divine mission 7:8-13

4. The first three plagues 7:14-8:19

5. The fourth, fifth, and sixth plagues 8:20-9:12

6. The seventh, eight, and ninth plagues 9:13-10:29

7. The proclamation of the tenth plague ch. 11

C. God's redemption of His people 12:1-13:16

1. The consecration of Israel as the covenant nation 12:1-28

2. The death of the first-born and the release of Israel 12:29-36

3. The exodus of Israel out of Egypt 12:37-42

4. Regulations concerning the Passover 12:43-51

5. The sanctification of the first-born 13:1-16

D. God's completion of Israel's liberation 13:17-15:21

1. The journey from Succoth to Etham 13:17-22

2. Israel's passage through the Red Sea ch. 14

3. Israel's song of deliverance 15:1-21

II. The adoption of Israel 15:22-40:38

A. God's preparatory instruction of Israel 15:22-18:27

1. Events in the wilderness of Shur 15:22-27

2. Quails and manna in the wilderness of Sin ch. 16

3. The lack of water at Rephidim 17:1-7

4. The hostility of the Amalekites 17:18-36

5. The friendliness of Jethro the Midianite ch. 18

B. The establishment of the Mosaic Covenant 19:1-24:11

1. Preparation for the Covenant ch. 19

2. The Ten Commandments 20:1-17

3. The response of the Israelites 20:18-21

4. The stipulations of the Book of the Covenant 20:22-23:33

5. The ratification of the Covenant 24:1-11

C. Directions regarding God's dwelling among His people 24:12-31:18

1. The revelation of these directions 24:12-18

2. Contributions for the construction of the sanctuary 25:1-9

3. The tabernacle furnishings 25:10-41

4. The tabernacle structure ch. 26

5. The tabernacle courtyard 27:1-19

6. The investiture of the priests 27:20-28:43

7. The consecration of the priests 29:1-37

8. The service of the priests 29:38-30:38

9. The builders of the tabernacle 31:1-11

10. The sign of the Sabbath 31:12-18

D. The breaking and renewing of the covenant chs. 32-34

1. The failure of Israel ch. 32

2. The re-establishment of fellowship ch. 33

3. The renewal of the covenant ch. 34

E. The construction and dedication of the objects used in Israel's worship chs. 35-40

1. Preparations for construction 35:1-36:7

2. Execution of the work 36:8-39:43

3. The erection and consecration of the tabernacle ch. 40

In an interesting and original chart of Exodus, Ted Grove suggested the following structural outline of Exodus.⁸

I. Israel's liberation chs. 1-18

A. Israel's affliction (Israel is Egypt's possession) 1:1-2:14

B. Deliverance 2:15-18:27

Ted saw the following chiastic structure in this section.

A Midian: Moses' commission 2:15-4:28

B Enemy: Egypt defeated 4:29-15:21

C Water: bitter to sweet and 12 springs 15:22-27

D Food: manna and quail ch. 16

C' Water: out of rock 17:1-7

B' Enemy: Amalek defeated 17:8-16

A' Midian: Moses accepts wisdom ch. 18

II. Israel's adoption chs. 19-40

A. Covenant delivered 19:1-24:11

B. Sanctuary planned 24:12-31:18

C. Covenant broken ch. 32

D. Covenant renewed chs. 33-34

E. Sanctuary's construction 35:1-40:33

F. Covenant sealed (Israel is God's possession) 40:34-38

Ted also saw a chiasm in this part of the book.

A Covenant delivered 19:1-24:11

B Tabernacle planned 24:12-27:21

C Priestly instructions chs. 28-30

D Craftsmen's direction 31:1-11

E Sabbath instructions 31:12-18

F Covenant broken ch. 32

F' Covenant renewed chs. 33-34

E' Sabbath reminded 35:1-3

D' Craftsmen and construction 35:4-38:31

C' Priests prepared ch. 39

B' Tabernacle completed 40:1-33

A' Covenant sealed 40:34-38

The center of the first chiasm is the manna. The center of the second chiasm is the tablets of the Law. These were the two items God instructed Moses to preserve in the ark of the covenant.

Ted saw the key verse of the book as 34:9.

Constable: Exodus

Exodus

Bibliography

Adams, Dwayne H. "The Building Program that Works (Exodus 25:4--36:7 [31:1-11])." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):82-92.

Aharoni, Yohanan. "Kadesh-Barnea and Mount Sinai." In God's Wilderness: Discoveries in Sinai, pp. 115-70. Edited by B. Rothenberg, Y. Aharoni, and A Hashimshoni. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William Foxwell. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. "Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C." Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954):222-33.

Aldrich, Roy L. "The Mosaic Ten Commandments Compared to Their Restatements in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 118:471 (July-September 1961):251-58.

Alexander, John F. "Sabbath Rest." The Other Side 146 (November 1983):8-9.

Aling, Charles F. "The Biblical City of Ramses." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25:2 (June 1982):129-37.

Allen, Ronald B. "The Bloody Bridegroom' in Exodus 4:24-26." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):259-69.

_____. "The Pillar of the Cloud." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):387-95.

Anati, Emmanuel. "Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):42-57.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):3-25.

_____ "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Moses to David." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):99-115.

_____ A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption." Journal for the Study of Judaism 17:2 (December 1986):153-76.

Baldwin, Joyce G. "The Role of the Ten Commandments." Vox Evangelica 13 (1983):7-18.

Barlow, Robert Andres. "The Passover Seder." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):63-68.

Batto, Bernard F. "Red Sea or Reed Sea?" Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-August 1984):57-63.

Beale, G. K. "An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9." Trinity Journal 5NS:2 (Autumn 1984):129-54.

Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. "Fifteen Years in Sinai." Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-August 1984):28-54.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Bimson, John J. "Redating the Exodus." Biblical Archaeology Review 13:5 (September-October 1986):40-53, 66-68.

_____. Redating the Exodus and the Conquest. JSOT supplement series. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1978.

Blosser, Oliver R. "Did the Pharaoh of the Exodus Drown in the Red Sea?" It's About Time (July 1987), pp. 8-12.

_____ "The Impact of the Ten Plagues and Mosaic Monotheism on the Religion of Akenaton: Part I." It's About Time (July 1987), pp. 3-7.

Bodenheimer, F. S. "The Manna of Sinai." Biblical Archaeologist 10:1 (February 1947):2-6.

Booij, Thijs. "Mountain and Theophany in the Sinai Narrative." Biblica 65:1 (1984):1-26.

Brichto, Herbert Chanan. "The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry." Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983):1-44.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Budge, E. A. W. The Gods of the Egyptians. New York: Dover Press, 1969.

Bunn, John T. "The Ark of the Covenant." Biblical Illustrator 9:4 (Summer 1983):50-53.

Burden, Jasper J. "A Stylistic Analysis of Exodus 15:1-21: Theory and Practice." OTWSA 29 (1986):34-70.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cools; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. Reprinted. Cambridge: University Press, 1928.

Bush, George. Notes on Exodus. 2 vols. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: James and Klock, 1976.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Reprinted. English ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974.

Chirichigno, G. C. "The Narrative Structure of Exod 19-24." Biblia 68:4 (1987):457-79.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Divine Hardening in the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):410-34.

_____. "Does God Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):387-99.

_____. "The Polemic against Baalism in Israel's Early History and Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):267-83.

Chismar, Douglas E. and David A Raush. "Regarding Theonomy: An Essay of Concern." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (September 1984):315-23.

Clapham, Phillip. "In Search of the Exodus." Catastrophism and Ancient History 8:2 (July 1986):97-133.

Clapp, Rodney. "Democracy as Heresy." Christianity Today 31:3 (February 20, 1987):17-23.

Cole, R. Alan. Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

Congdon, Robert N. "Exodus 21:22-25 and the Abortion Debate." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):132-47.

Constable, Thomas L. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

_____ Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. "The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth." In God and Christ: Existence and Province, pp. 1-25. Edited by Robert W. Funk. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

_____ "The Tabernacle." Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):45-68.

Curtis, Edward M. "The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images in the Old Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28:3 (September 1985):277-87.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davis, John J. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971.

Deere, Jack S. "Deuteronomy." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 259-324. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

DeHaan, Martin Ralph. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1943.

Deist, F. E. "Who is to blame: the Pharaoh, Yahweh or circumstance? On human responsibility, and divine ordinance in Exodus 1-14." OTWSA 29(1986):91-110.

Dennett, Edward. Typical Teachings of Genesis. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Dennison, James T., Jr. "The Exodus: Historical Narrative, Prophetic Hope, Gospel Fulfillment." Covenant Seminary Review 8:2 (Fall 1982):1-12.

Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by James Hastings, 1909 ed. S.v. "Tabernacle," by A. R. S. Kennedy.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Dunnam, Maxie D. Exodus. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Dunnett, Dolores E. "Evangelicals and Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33:2 (June 1990):215-25.

Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Dyer, Charles H. "The Date of the Exodus Reexamined." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:559 (July-September 1983):225-43.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Ellison, H. L. Exodus. Daily Study Bible series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.

Encyclopaedia Judica. S.v. "Cuneiform Law," by J. Finkelstein, 16:1505i.

Exum, J. Cheryl. "You Shall Let Every Daughter Live': A Study of Exodus 1:8-2:10." Semeia 28 (1983):63-82.

Fass, David E. "The Molten Calf: Judgment, Motive, and Meaning." Judaism 39:2 (Spring 1990):171-83.

Fawver, Jay D., and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September):270-85.

Fensham, F. C. "Extra-Biblical Material and the Hermeneutics of the Old Testament with Special Reference to the Legal Material of the Covenant Code." OTWSA 20 & 21 (1977 & 78):53-65.

Finegan, Jack. Let My People Go. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1963.

Finkelstein, Israel. "Raider of the Lost Mountain--An Israeli Archaeologist Looks at the Most Recent Attempt to Locate Mt. Sinai." Biblical Archaeology Review 15:4 (July-August 1988):46-50.

Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948; reprint ed., New York: Harper and Row; Harper Torchbooks, 1961.

Franz, Gordon. "Mt. Sinai Is Not Jebel El-Lawz in Saudi Arabia." A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 15, 2001, Colorado Springs, Colo.

Free, Joseph P. Archaeology and Bible History. 5th ed. revised. Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1956.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. "The Sabbath Controversy." Biblical Research Monthly 49:4 (July-August 1984):14-16.

Gardner, Joseph L., ed. Reader's Digest Atlas of the Bible. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader's Digest Association, 1985.

Gevirtz, Stanley. "Heret, in the Manufacture of the Golden Calf." Biblica 65 (1984):377-81.

Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.

Gispen, William H. Exodus. Translated by Ed van der Maas. Bible Student's Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Gnuse, Robert. "Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel's Vision of Social Reform." Biblical Theology Bulletin 15:2 (April 1985):43-48.

Goldberg, Michael. "Expository Articles: Exodus 1:13-14." Interpretation 37:4 (October 1983):389-91.

Gunn, David M. "The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart': Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1-14." In Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, pp. 72-96. Edited by David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 19. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1982.

Gurney, O. R. The Hittites. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964.

Habel, N. "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1965):316-23.

Hagin, Kenneth E. Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, and Death. Tulsa: Faith Library Publications, 1983.

Hannah, John D. "Exodus." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 103-62. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch." In The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 21-43. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982.

Hengstenberg, Ernst W. Egypt and the Books of Moses. Translated by R. D. C. Robbins. New York: M. H. Newman, 1843.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, Hearthstone Book, 1987.

Hilber, John W. "Theology of Worship in Exodus 24." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:2 (June 1996):177-89.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Holmgren, Fredrick. "Before the Temple, the Thornbush: An Exposition of Exodus 2:11-3:12." Reformed Journal 33:3 (March 1983):9-11.

Hopkins, Ezekiel. "Understanding the Ten Commandments." In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 41-58. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Hoppe, Leslie J. "Elders and Deuteronomy." Eglise et Theologie 14 (1983):259-72.

Horn, Siegfried H. Biblical Archaeology: A Generation of Discovery. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1985.

Hort, Greta. "The Plagues of Egypt." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1957):84-103; 70 (1958):48-59.

Houtman, C. "A Note on the LXX Version of Exodus 4, 6." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97:2 (1983):253-54.

_____ "On the Meaning of Uba'esim Uba'abanim in Exodus VII 19." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (1986):347-52.

Hughes, R. Kent. Living on the Cutting Edge. Westchester, Il.: Good News Publishers, Crossway Books, 1987.

Hyatt, J. Philip. Exodus. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1971; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Isser, Stanley. "Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisited." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):30-45.

Jacob, B. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Hoboken: KTAV, 1992.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, Gordon H. "I Will Multiply Your Seed." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):19-32.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "Exodus." In Genesis--Numbers. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.

_____. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Kalland, Lloyd. "Fetal Life." Eternity, February 1971, pp. 18-21, 24.

Keil, C. F., and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kempinski, Aharon. "Jacob in History." Biblical Archaeology Review 14:1 (January-February 1988):42-47.

Kennedy, James M. "The Social Background of Early Israel's Rejection of Cultic Images: A Proposal." Biblical Theology Bulletin 17:4 (October 1987);138-44.

Kiene, Paul F. The Tabernacle of God in the Wilderness. Translated by John S. Crandall. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

King, Geoffrey R. "Where Is the Ark of the Covenant?" Prophetic Witness 8:2 (February 1984):9-10.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____ The Bible In Its World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

_____ "Labour Conditions in the Egypt of the Exodus." Buried History 20:3 (September 1984):43-49.

_____ "The Old Testament in its Context: 2 From Egypt to the Jordan." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 60 (1971):3-11.

Kline, Meredith G. "Comments on an Old-New Error." Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978):172-89.

_____. "Deuteronomy." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 155-204. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

_____. "The Feast of Cover-over." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):497-510.

_____ "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus." Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 (1985-86):75-89.

_____ The Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.

Kubo, Sakae. "Why then the law?" Ministry (March 1980), pp. 12-14.

Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1966.

Laney, J. Carl. "God's Self-Revelation in Exodus 34:6-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):36-51.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus, by John Peter Lange and Frederic Gardiner. Translated by Tayler Lewis, A. Gosman, and Charles M. Mead.

Lev, Mordecai J., ed. Sepher Mitzvoth. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1990.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Lightner, Robert P. "Theological Perspectives on Theonomy." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):26-36; 570 (April-June 1986):134-45; 571 (July-September 1986):228-45.

Livingston, G. Herbert. "A Case Study of the Call of Moses." Asbury Theological Journal 42:2 (Fall 1987):89-113.

_____.The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Loewenstamm, Samuel E. "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf." Biblica 48 (1967):481-90.

_____ "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf--a Rejoinder." Biblica 56 (1975):330-43.

Lubarsky, Sandra B. "Judaism and the Justification of Abortion for Non-Medical Reasons." Journal of Reform Judaism 31:4 (Fall 1984):1-13.

M[ackintosh], C. H. Notes on the Book of Exodus. American ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1879.

MacLurg, Jeffrey E. "An Ode to Joy: The Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-21)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):43-54.

Magonet, Jonathan. "The Rhetoric of God: Exodus 6.2-8." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27 (1983):56-67.

Marcus, David. "Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13 (1981):31-52.

Mazar, Amihai. "Bronze Bull Found in Israelite High Place' from the Time of the Judges." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:5 (September-October 1983):34-40.

Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania, 1955.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Mosaic Covenant: A Proposal for Its Theological Significance." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):25-33.

_____. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Meyer, Frederick Brotherton. Devotional Commentary on Exodus. London: Purnell, n.d.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1981.

Milgrom, Jacob. "Thou Shalt Not Boil a Kid in It's Mother's Milk.'" Bible Review 1:3 (Fall 1985):48-55.

Mills, Watson E. "Childbearing in Ancient Times." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):54-56.

Minter, Steve. "Ten Timeless Words (Exodus 20:1-17)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):67-80.

Mitchell, Bill. "Leviticus 24.6: The Bread of the Presence--Rows or Piles?" Bible Translator 33:4 (October 1982):447-48.

Mitchell, T. C. "The Meaning of the Noun HTN in the Old Testament." Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969):93-112.

Montet, Pierre. Eternal Egypt. Translated by Doreen Weightman. New York: New American Library, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morgan, J. P. "The Morality of Suicide: Issues and Options." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):214-30.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. "The Name of the God of Moses." Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):121-33.

Mowvley, Henry. "John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35." Expository Times 95:5 (February 1984):135-37.

Munro, John "Prayer to a Sovereign God." Interest 56:2 (February 1990):20-21.

Myers, John V. "What Was Brimstone?" Kronos 9:1 (Fall 1983):57-60.

Naville, Edouard. The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1885.

New Bible Dictionary. 1962. S.v. "Plagues of Egypt," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.

Nichol, Francis David, ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. 7 vols. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1953-57.

Nicholson, E. W. "The Decalogue As the Direct Address of God." Vetus Testamentum 27 (October 1977):422-33.

Nowell, Irene. "Sabbath: Sign of the Covenant." The Bible Today 24:6 (November 1986):376-80.

Oosthuizen, M. J. "Some thoughts on the interpretation of Exodus 4:24-26." OTWSA 29(1986):1-30.

Patterson, Richard D. "Wonders in the Heavens and on the Earth: Apolcalyptic Imagery in the Old Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):385-403.

Paul, Shalom. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. A Faith That Endures: The Book of Hebrews Applied to the Real Issues of Life. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1992.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Perevolotsky, Aviram, and Israel Finkelstein. "The Southern Sinai Exodus Route in Ecological Perspective." Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):26-41.

Petrie, Flinders. Egypt and Israel. New York: E. S. Gorham, 1911.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. Ras Shamra and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962.

Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel's Criminal Law. New York: Schocken, 1970.

_____ "A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope." Vetus Testamentum 34 (January 1984): 39-52; 34 (July 1984):282-94.

_____ The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21:2-11." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30 (October 1984):51-66.

_____ "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel." Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973):349-61.

Pollock, Algernon J. The Tabernacle's Typical Teaching. London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Proffitt, T. D., III. "Moses and Anthropology: A New View of the Exodus." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:1 (March 1984):19-25.

Radday, Yehuda T. "The Spoils of Egypt." Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 12 (1983):127-47.

Ramey, William D. "The Great Escape (Exodus 14)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):33-42.

Ramm, Bernard L. His Way Out. Glendale: Gospel Light Publications; Regal Books, 1974.

Reviv, Hanoch. "The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating." Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94:4 (1982):566-75.

Ridout, Samuel. Lectures on the Tabernacle. Bible Truth Library series. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, n.d.

Robinson, Bernard P. "Symbolism in Exod. 15:22-27 (Marah and Elim)." Revue Biblique 94:3 (July 1987):376-88.

_____. "Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6." Vetus Testamentum 36:4 (October 1986):447-61.

Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. "Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus." Andrews University Seminary Studies 24:2 (Summer 1986):127-45.

Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Ross, Allen P. "When God Gives His People Bitter Water." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):55-66.

Rowley, Harold H. "Moses and the Decalogue." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester 34:1 (September 1951);81-118.

Ryrie, Charles C. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

Sailhamer, John H. "Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a." Trinity Journal 5 NS (Spring 1984):73-82.

_____. "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch." Westminster Theological Journal 53 (Fall 1991):241-61.

_____. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Sarles, Ken L. "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):57-82.

_____ "A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):329-52.

Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.

_____. "Exploring Exodus--The Oppression." Biblical Archaeologist 49:2 (June 1986):68-79.

Sasson, J. M. "Circumcision in the Ancient Near East." Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966):473-76.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Shafer, B. E., ed. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice. Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Sheriffs, Deryck. "Moving on with God: Key motifs in Exodus 13-20." Themelios 15:2 (January-February 1990):49-60.

Siker-Gieseler, Jeffrey. "The Theology of the Sabbath in the Old Testament: A Canonical Approach." Studia Biblica et Theologica 11:1 (April 1981):5-20.

Soltau, Henry W. The Tabernacle, the Priesthood and the Offerings. London: Morgan and Scott, n.d.

Speiser, E. A. "An Angelic Curse': Exodus 14:20." Journal of the American Oriental Society 80 (1960):198-200.

Spurgeon, Graham. "Is Abortion Murder?" In The Religious Case for Abortion, pp. 15-27. Edited by Hamilton Gregory. Asheville: Madison and Polk, 1983.

Steuer, Axel D. "The Freedom of God and Human Freedom." Scottish Journal of Theology 36:2:163-80.

Stiebing, William H., Jr. "Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement in Canaan Be Redated?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):58-69.

Strange, James F. "The Jewish Calendar." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):28-32.

Strauss, Lehman. The Eleven Commandments. 2nd ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1975.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Sring, Margit L. "The Horn-Motifs of the Bible and the Ancient Near East." Andrews University Seminary Studies 22:3 (Autumn 1984):327-40.

Tan, Paul Lee. Principles of Literal Interpretation of the Bible. By the Author, 1967.

Tolhurst, A. H. "Whatever Happened to the Ark?" Ministry, June 1984, pp. 13-15.

Unger, Merrill F. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

_____ Biblical Demonology. 7th ed. Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1967.

_____ Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1974.

_____ "The Significance of the Sabbath." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489 (January-March 1966):53-59.

Unger's Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. S.v. "Cherub," by Merrill F. Unger.

_____ S.v. "Metrology," by E. McChesney, revised by Merrill F. Unger.

van der Meulen, Henry E. Faber. "One or two veils in front of the holy of holies?" Theologia Evangelica 18:1 (March 1985):22-27.

Van Seters, John. The Hyksos. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.

Voss, Robert J. "Who Am I That I Should Go? Exodus 3:11 (Ex. 2:25--4:18)." Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 80:4 (Fall 1983):243-47.

Wagner, Maurice E. "How to Honor Your Parents When They've Hurt You." Psychology for Living 28:6 (June 1986):12-14.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

_____ "Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:513 (January-March 1972):33-47.

_____ "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):3-13.

Walvoord, John F. "The New Covenant." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 186-200. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Ward, William A. The Spirit of Ancient Egypt. Beirut: Khayats, 1965.

Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. 1692. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.

Wenham, John W. The Goodness of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1974.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Williams, Gary R. "The Purpose of Penology in the Mosaic Law and Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:529 (January-March 1976):42-55.

Wilson, Robert Dick. "Yahweh (Jehovah) and Exodus 6:3." In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 29-40. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Wilson, Robert R. "The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41:1 (1979):18-36.

Winter, Ralph D. "The Growth of Israel in Egypt (The Phenomenon of Exponential Growth)." Paper published by the Institute of International Studies, Pasadena, Ca., 14 April 1993.

Wolinski, Arelene. "Egyptian Masks: The Priest and His Role." Archaeology 40:1 (January-February 1987):22-29.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77.

Wyatt, N. "The Significance of the Burning Bush." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):361-65.

Wyrick, Stephen Von. "Israel's Golden Calves." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):3-12.

Youngblood, Ronald F. Exodus. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

_____ "A New Look at an Old Problem: The Date of the Exodus." Christianity Today 26:20 (December 17, 1982):58, 60.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Practice of Witchcraft in the Scriptures." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:512 (October-December 1971):352-60.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Exodus (Pendahuluan Kitab)

THE BOOK OF EXODUS.

INTRODUCTION.

The second Book of Moses is called Exodus from the Greek word Exodos, which signifies going out; because it contains the history of the going out of the children of Israel out of Egypt. The Hebrews, from the words with which it begins, call it Veelle Shemoth : These are the names. (Challoner) --- It contains the space of 143 years, till the beginning of the second year after the liberation of the Israelites. (Tirinus) --- Their slavery is described in the first chapters; and is supposed to have continued ninety years. (Du Hamel) --- The laws prescribed by God to his people, the sacrifices, tabernacle, &c., were all intended to prefigure the Christian dispensation. (St. Augustine, City of God vii. 31.) --- Moses himself was a type of Jesus Christ, who was rejected by the synagogue, and received by the Gentiles, as the Jewish Legislator was abandoned by his mother, and educated by the Egyptian princess. She delivers him back to his mother; and thus the Jews will, at last, acknowledge our Saviour. (Du Hamel) --- God deigns to address his people in the character of a powerful Eastern monarch, and requires the like attention. He appoints his ministers, like guards, to attend before his tabernacle, &c. The laws which he enacts, are such as suited the Jewish people: they were not to rise all at once to perfection; but these laws guide them, as it were, on the road. They are infinitely more perfect than those of the surrounding nations. (Calmet)

Gill: Exodus (Pendahuluan Kitab)

INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS

This book is called by the Jews Veelleh Shemoth, from the first words with which it begins, and sometimes Sepher Shemoth, and sometimes only Shemoth. It is by the Septuagint called Exodus, from whom we have the name of Exodus, which signifies "a going out"; see Luk 9:31, because it treats of the going of the children of Israel out of Egypt; and hence in the Alexandrian copy it is called the Exodus of Egypt; and so the Syriac version entitles it the second book of the law, called "the going out"; and to the same purpose the Arabic version. The Jews sometimes give it the name of Nezikin, as Buxtorf ^a observes out of the Masora on Gen 24:8 because in it some account is given of losses, and the restitution of them. That this book is of divine inspiration, and to be reckoned in the canon of the sacred writings, is sufficiently evident to all that believe the New Testament; since there are so many quotations out of it there by Christ, and his apostles; particularly see Mar 12:26 and that it was wrote by Moses is not to be doubted, but when is not certain; it must be after the setting up of the tabernacle in the wilderness; the greatest part of what is contained in it, he was an eye and ear witness of; it plainly points out the accomplishment of the promises and prophecies delivered to Abraham, that his posterity would be very numerous, that they would be afflicted in a land not theirs, and in the fourth generation come out of it with great substance. It treats of the afflictions of the Israelites in Egypt, after the death of Joseph, until their deliverance by Moses; of his birth, calling, and mission to Pharaoh, to demand of him to let the children of Israel go; of the ten plagues upon him and his people, for refusing to dismiss them; of the departure of Israel from Egypt, and the institution of the passover on that account; of their passage through the Red sea into the wilderness, and of the various exercises and afflictions, supplies and supports they met with there; of the giving of a body of laws unto them, moral, ceremonial, and judicial; and of the building of the tabernacle, and all things appertaining to it; and throughout the whole, as there is a figure and representation of the passage of the people of God out of spiritual Egypt, through the wilderness of this world, to the heavenly Canaan, and of various things they must meet with in their passage, so there are many types of Christ, his person, office, and grace, and of his church, his word, and ordinances, which are very edifying and instructing. The book contains a history of about one hundred and forty years, from the death of Joseph, to the erection of the tabernacle.

Gill: Exodus 21 (Pendahuluan Pasal)

INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS 21

In this, and the two following chapters, are delivered various laws and precepts, partly of a moral, and partly of a religious, but chiefly of a civil nature, respecting the commonwealth of Israel, and its political good. This chapter treats of servants, and laws relating to them; to menservants, how long they shall serve, and what is to be done to those who are desirous of staying with their masters after their time is up, Exo 21:1, to maidservants, and especially betrothed ones, either to a father or a son, Exo 21:7, likewise it contains laws concerning the slaughter of men, whether with design or unawares, Exo 21:12, and concerning the ill usage of parents, Exo 21:15, and man stealing, Exo 21:16 and of mischief that comes by men's quarrelling and fighting, Exo 21:18 and by smiting a man or maidservant, Exo 21:20, to a woman with child, that is, by means of men's striving and contending with each other, Exo 21:22 and of damages that come by oxen, or to them, Exo 21:28.