Striking A Blow For Human Rights - Exodus 21

      He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death (main rule).  But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.  
      If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.  
     He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.  
     He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
     He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
     If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.
     If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
     If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.  But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
     If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye.  And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth. (Exodus 21:12-27 NASB)

This set of laws or judgments deviates from what precedes it only in structure.  A very typical structure used here to differentiate where laws break is to use the word “For” or a participle to begin a new circumstance, and then “if” to begin corollaries.  In addition, there have been paragraph marks added to the Hebrew text to show where it was thought a paragraph ended.  It doesn’t always line out easily, so I have followed the grammatical structure over the paragraph marks where they differed.

 
One element that sets these laws apart from the typical laws of that day is the absence of class structures to differentiate people, and the inclusion of slaves.  It’s different because slaves aren’t even included in personal injury laws of cultures surrounding the Hebrews, and class distinctions were.  Here slaves are included; they can be freed or avenged in certain circumstances.  Regardless of wealth or social standing, anyone killing another is subject to some sort of punishment whether death or banishment (fleeing to a city of refuge).   This is a huge cultural deviation in that social setting.

I believe that God is taking advantage of the teachable moment of His people having just left slavery in a very class-conscious culture.  They would have been excluded from any benefits under the law, and they would have witnessed the legal protection of the wealthy and powerful over the poorer craftsmen and tradesmen.   It was not to be this way among and between them.  These protected abuses were not to be characteristic of their society and culture.  While social and economic status may have differentiated people, the law did not.  All were protected even, to a lesser extent, slaves.

Here the Creator of all life takes an opportunity to strike a blow for the elevation of humanity, in all levels of society.  Cultural traditions had been removed through centuries of slavery, so He could instate ones that reflected His perspectives and priorities.  This set of laws is one way the Chosen People could display the holiness of the One who chose them.  They would be different and stand out among cultures, societies, and economies around them.  Or, at least they should have.  The record of the judges and kings does not record how often these rules were ignored or deviated from.

In so many other ways the Hebrews deviated from following their Divine King to follow the nations around them.  There are accounts after accounts of how they followed foreign gods, chased foreign political structures, and sought the friendship and trade with them.  I suspect they did so with their legal processes as well.  It is one thing to have a law written, and another to practice it.  The kings did not follow the laws for kings, but behaved as the kings around them.  It would follow the people would practice the laws of surrounding cultures as well, or at least a mixture that suited them at the moment.

In this day, with those who claim the name of Jesus as their Master, the difference between what is written and what is lived is often dramatic.  Yet, we have here in the Hebrew Scriptures what I believe serves well as an indicator of how our Master would have us treat others.  There are not to be “class” or “economic” distinctions in our treatment of others.  James says as much in his letter (James 2:1-9).  It is difficult though.  There are expectations that the wealthy give more, and often they give less.  Assumptions that worldly distinctions will be the means to provide for a church are dangerous.

What I see here is in line with James, Paul, and others who wrote to correct the reliance upon worldly class distinctions in churches.  The reality is that God provides from means only He sees.  All should give, and give without reservation.  All people stand before Him on level ground, and none of it is very high.  The real distinction between people before God is that some know Him and Jesus Christ whom He has sent (John 17:3), and some don’t.  So, some are alive, and some are not.  In our eyes, as in the eyes of our Father, that should be the only distinction as well, whether they wear loin cloths or 3-button suits.

"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.