"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.

The Servant of the Pierced Ear - Exodus 21

"Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:   If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.   If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.   If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.   But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost.  And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. (Exodus 21:1-6 NASB)

So far, the legal texts examined have been easy to fit into the two guidelines of commands or prohibitions with either consequences or explanation (or both, and).  Now though, I have finally reached a formal legal text, one of the first.  The chapter before with the famous Nine Commandments still fit into the working definition.  Here it does, but it is formatted in such a way that it forms yet another element I feel I need to add to my guidelines.

This text is labeled a “judgment” which is translated at “ordinance” in the version above.  The reason this is significant is that it reads like the results from legal decisions compounded over time from dealing with a similar topic; a categorical legal treatment.  It uses the allusion to precedents without the date and case title citations used today.  But the development is really easy to see.  Not everyone may be able to spot it, so I outlined it below:

Main Category:  “If you buy a Hebrew slave”

Main Rule:  “he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.”

Corollary 1:  “If he comes alone, he shall go out alone”

Corollary 2:  “if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.”

Corollary 3a:  “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone”

Corollary 3b:  “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost.  And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently”

I hope that helps.  It may not seem like a big deal, but when the next passage is examined, you might think differently.  I believe the structure draws attention to pieces that God considers important.  The structure provides clues as to the development of the topic, each piece answering a question having arisen previously.  So, what was happening that this law corrects?  Slave owners were keeping Hebrew slaves more than six years, or not taking them as servants at all.  Then they weren’t permitting them the freedom of six years if they were provided a wife.  It also protects the owner from losing a slave if his slaves marry.  Finally it provides a means by which the slave can remain with his family if he so chooses that situation rather than freedom apart from his family.

So, I find in this text two important essential truths.  The Creator of the universe cares about and has an opinion about how His people treat each other, even in “master”-“slave” relationships among Hebrews.  And it seems that He does not treat one greater than the other, but equally.  The power does not lie with the rich, but neither does it lie with the slave, at least not here.  Family is a unique element here, and God weighs in on the issue, but, again without seeming to favor one over the other.  Slaves cannot take advantage of the owner by keeping a wife he gained while indentured, and the owner cannot keep a Hebrew’s wife he had when he indentured himself.  And finally, God permits the indentured situation to become permanent, perhaps for filial devotion.

If these elements are important to God, I believe they should be important to me, and I should seek to find out why He thought they were important.  Of course, I am not saying that this structure is unique to the revelation from God made through this book.  I realize that it is a rather common structure in ancient legal texts.  I believe that adds to the clarity of what my Master reveals to the people of that age rather than detracts from the importance of what it reveals.  That God cares about slaves, masters, and families is important to know.

This text has an interesting parallel in Deuteronomy 15:12-18.  It is interesting because it changes several elements, expands on the social context, and gives rational support for the law.  That text also abandons this structure and is more constructed like the previous texts I have examined.  The social setting is a poor Hebrew indenturing himself to a wealthy Hebrew master.  An interesting change from the Exodus passage is that the slave goes out paid for his service rather than empty handed.  Another interesting change is the absence of family circumstances.

The focus in the Exodus passage regards equitable treatment between Hebrews.  The Deuteronomy Passage focuses on care for the poor (the context supports such a view of the Deuteronomy passage).  God is interested in both, and gives His opinion on both.  I believe other passages in Exodus will support the high view God has for how His people treat each other.  He elevates the status of the poor out of socio-economic structures and puts them on more level playing field with the wealthy.  I believe that’s important, even among Jesus followers today, in our modern culture.

In order to interpret this passage, I had to abandon some prejudices I have held dear.  I want the underdog to win, so I want my Master to favor the poor and let the wealthy take a hit.  It seems my Master doesn’t.  I’m rooting for the family, I want love to win out, and for them to live happily ever after, free.  This is not my Master’s point.  Slavery is permitted, but controlled.  Family is permitted, but subjected to societal structures (slavery).  The field is leveled, not tilted in favor of those typically oppressed by the rich.  This is not the “American Way” perhaps, but it seems to be God’s way.

I can’t play favorites.  Jesus doesn’t.  Paul, James, and Peter all argue against it.  But that also means I don’t favor the poor.  That sounds strange, but I have to accept that as my Master’s perspective.  That’s not easy for me.  Walking that fine line between favoring one group over another can be confusing.  I can question everything I do, I can worry that I’m being equitable; I can let it cause me stress.  But I don’t have to let that happen.  I believe that in dealing with people, my Master will guide me to those things which glorify Him most.  If I can ignore the wealth or poverty and focus on what my Master reveals to me about what He is doing, and where He is working, then He will be glorified.  That is what I must hold most important.