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.