"Upstairs Maid" or Expensive Wife - Exodus 21

If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.  If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.   If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.   If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.   If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)

Back in the late 90’s, right when Y2K was becoming a looming fear, a guy in our church brought me an email he had been copied on by a friend of his.  It was a forward going around generated by an atheist in response to Dr. Laura Slushinger advocating her Jewish roots, and saying the Jewish Law was valid for today.  It was posed as a lot of questions for “clarification” but the questions were very derisive, disrespectful, and, as it turned out, completely ignorant.  The person responsible clearly had not read the passages, but had “heard” of them.

One of these I had never heard of had to do with selling a daughter into slavery.  The guy misquoted the reference, so it took me some time to find it, but I did find it.  What I found surprised me.  Actually it surprised me in two ways.  First it really was there and didn’t prohibit the sale of a daughter into slavery, but gave rules regarding such a transaction.  That meant my Master condoned it.  Second, as I read it, considered the culture, and then looked up some contemporary laws from surrounding cultures, I found that it actually elevated and protected the status and life of the daughter.

This passage breaks down in much the same way as the previous one, structured almost exactly the same.  It has the place following the previous law for the likely reason brought out in the Message paraphrase, to show the difference between how a daughter sold into slavery differs from the “six-year” rule in the previous passage. The outline is below:

• Situation Judged:   If a man sells his daughter as a female slave
• Main condition:  she is not to go free as the male slaves do (i.e. the previous law does not apply here)
• Main rule:  If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed
• Corollary 1:  He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her
• Corollary 2:  If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters
• Corollary 3:  If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights
• Corollary 4:  If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money

It might be difficult to see how this law protects the daughter sold into slavery.  A historical context might help.  For a marriage to be binding in ancient Mesopotamia there had to be a contract, a betrothal-cost, and often a dowry (one of the main attractions for a perspective husband).  The laws surrounding such transactions sound a bit like this law here.  The marriages were arranged by the Father and perspective groom or groom’s father. 

In the case of a debt where a person is used as a pledge, a son, daughter, wife or slave could serve as the pledge.  The rules in such a case were very distinct from marriage transactions.  In debt pledge situations, the time limit was 3 years, and no distinction was made between males or females used as the “pledge”.  This could be very problematic for the father who only had a daughter and a debt that prevented a dowry for her.  If his daughter were taken advantage of while in the house of his creditor, he would never be able to have her marry, even with a dowry.  God’s solution is to blend the laws.

So, while a law permitting the sale of a daughter into slavery was in there, I found that it was a “blow for women’s rights” struck by their Creator.   While my Master does not try to remove social structures already in place, He does modify how His people will practice them.  Even the case of a creditor distraining their debtor, the Creator of both people wades in on the side of the one in pledge.  It is surprising actually.  He changes a harrowing disaster into a marriage arrangement.  The alternative would dehumanize the daughter, who is already disadvantaged in these early societies and cultures.

I made sure that my response to the atheist included my confusion about why he was so vehemently against the status of women being elevated, even in a “historical” setting.  I’m sure that reading through the passage, anyone visiting this blog page would initially be shocked.  First, it’s in there at all, and second, I would publish it.  How embarrassing for my Master to have such a faux pa on His record.  It’s like airing His dirty laundry.  But is it really?  The principle I see applied by my Master to the culture 3000 is that He values women as people, on equal terms with men.

That may seem like overstepping the passage, but remember the context is that Hebrew males in slavery went free after six years.  A woman in the same culture/society in the same situation would be ruined for life if that happened to her.  While the rest of the world makes no provision for this problem in social and family situations, my Master does.  He defends women in a society where there were limits on such protection.  I have a daughter, and I for one, really appreciate the fact of my Master’s concern for her.  She is really His daughter entrusted to me for a while.