Lesson from The Law of Moses (Exodus 21:1-31)

 
Sometimes it helps to know the law. Sometimes after even a simple accident like a car crash it is important to know what to say, and what not to say. We have a legal system in our country that is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. So, that concept legal and moral legislation revealed to the Jewish people and adopted by Christians teaches us things about the law that we need to know. So, what is it about the law that we can learn from revealed here at the very foundation of not only our own but the worlds legal system? And the answer is found in Exodus chapter 21. If you will recall, chapter 20 contains the Ten Commandments. 

Now looking at chapter 21, verse 1 opens up the next stage by telling us.

Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them.'

(Exodus 21: 1)

Now, that's very significant. Chapter 20 are the Ten Commandments, chapter 21 begins by telling us these are the judgments, some practical decisions made in interpretating those laws in this early society. However, in this episode,  we're going to look at most of what's in the opening verses of Exodus chapter 21. 

What's the difference between a commandment and a judgment? And the answer is something like this: The commandments are broad laws; the judgments are situations that come up that need the application of those laws. To say the same thing in another way in our day, we have laws that stand in statute as common law and the additional laws that Parliament and the house of Lords pass, and then we have case law. The law is the general principle  and then you come up with these very specific situations, and you ask, 'How does that general law apply in this situation?' And what a lawyer will do is go back and study prior cases, previous cases, and that's called case law and will along with others, sometimes a jury sometimes a judge and decided how that general law should be applied. Sometime allowing for what is referred to as judicial precedent.

For example, the Ten Commandments say, 'Do not kill.' Now, how does that apply? Should some distinctions be made? Are there cases where you deliberately and premeditatively decide to take someone's life? Is that different than accidentally taking someone's life? And the answer is yes, it’s recognised here in Exodus, and it’s recognised in our judicial system today. One is called murder another is called manslaughter. That distinction is rooted in the Mosaic law, and it actually starts with the case law in Exodus 21. In verse 1, by saying, 'These are the judgments, is actually saying here are some examples, some, case law so to speak, to help you think about how this might work out in the society  in which you have been placed.

We're not going to cover the whole chapter today, but almost all of it. And I'm going to look at five different cases that apply to five different situations. The first case deals with what are referred to as male servants. That's in these opening verses, 2 to 6.

2 ‘If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5 ‘But if the servant declares, “I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,” 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the door-post and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

(Exodus 21: 2-6)

Alright, this is going to sound a little strange to us but is the case of a person being 'a Hebrew servant,' well what is being described here is not exactly like what we think of as slavery today. It would probably be more accurate to say this is something like being an indentured servant. An indentured servant is someone who has entered or been placed into a contract, an indenture, to be that person's servant. Now, what is significant about this passage is there is a time limit. He is to only be an indentured servant for six years, and after that, he is to go free. Why would somebody do something like that? And the answer is, perhaps to pay off a debt. That is, you could say, 'I owe you a debt. I tell you what, I'll sign a contract with you, enter into an agreement with you, and I will be your servant.' But it always had a limit. Six years, after that, I'm a free man. This indicates that people would become indentured servants and they would sign a contract, and that would mean that they would be obligated to the master, within limits.

If a male who was an indentured servant, and the owner provided a wife, then when he left, the wife was to stay there because the wife was still a servant that belonged to the master. However, if the servant wanted to keep his wife and family and stay married, then they could go and make a social contract before judges, he would then have his ear pierced, and then he would stay a servant and stay married to his wife. And the master would then be responsible for providing for him and the family, and he would be responsible for continuing to serve the master. We don't have anything exactly like this today, although I did read someone who said this is not that different in employment terms to a professional athlete who signs a contract for a team. They are under contract, and then are owned by that team and cannot play for another team unless their contract runs out, then they are a free agent, or their owner makes a deal with another team? It's similar to that kind of thing.

So, is there anything to  learn from this today? I think that if nothing else, this teaches us that people have basic rights, even when they sell themselves to pay off a debt. They still have rights, and there are limits. And if they wanted to stay in that relationship for longer, that is their choice. They could choose to do that but it isn’t forced upon them. When I look at this case, the thing I walk away from is that even indentured servants had rights. That's built into the law.

The second case really gets interesting, and that has to do with a man giving his daughter to be married. It begins in verse 7 and goes to verse 11.

7 ‘If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing, and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

(Exodus 21: 7-11)

This sounds like she's being sold, except the next verse indicates this has to do with marriage. Now, this is a puzzling text but notice verse 8 says, 'He betrothed her to himself.' This is a case of an arranged marriage. The father and the suitor make a deal that this is going to happen. So, is this a case of what we would call an arranged marriage. And that still goes on in some parts of the world today. This means if the husband doesn't like the girl, he has been promised too, then he doesn't have the right to just sell her to someone else. He has have to let her be redeemed, so she can go back home, he can’t just simply pass her on. It gets a little confusing because it's talking about betrothing her to his son instead. This means that if the master's son subsequently wants her he must take her and treat her as a wife, not a concubine. She becomes a full-fledged wife and must no longer treated as a servant, and she gets all the rights of a wife, even if she was a servant she gains the same rights as a free woman.

I think the point of all of this is that you can't just treat a wife or a daughter as a slave. You see, this is setting a limit set here. Remember this is at a time when multiple wives were commonplace among the tribes and nations of that time. This sets some rules that if a daughter becomes a wife, then the husband can’t treat her any way he wants to. If she becomes his wife, she has full rights as a wife, and he has to treat her as a wife, as a full-fledged person. The takeaway from this case is that even in arranged marriages, the woman has rights, and she must be treated with dignity and respect.

The third case is in verses 12 to 14, and it deals with the crime of murder.

Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

(Exodus 20: 12-14)

When God gave the Ten Commandments, they were broad laws, but then there would be cases that would come up where you would have to apply the law, and the case of murder is one of those cases. It's a very clear-cut case. If you kill somebody, then you will be put to death, under the Mosaic law. That one was fairly straight forward but what about other more complicated situations. 

The fourth case is in verses 15 to 17, and it deals with the crime of assaulting parents. 

Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death. Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

(Exodus 20: 15-17)

Now, that's seems a pretty severe punishment, isn't it? But it shows how seriously God takes the family. You see, the family is the basic unit of society, and if you don't have a healthy family, then you don't have a healthy society. So, God wanted to preserve the family, in this new nation he has chosen to be his people.  One way of protecting the family is by putting to death those who would use violence to undermine it. today The basic standard remains today in that we should still respect and honour our parents. I think that's a good thing. It's not always easy, but it's a good thing to do.

The fifth case is in verses 18 to 19, and it deals with the case of assault.

If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

(Exodus 20: 18-19)

In this case, if two men get into a fight and one of them strikes the other and he is injured but doesn't die, then the one who struck him is not put to death, but he has to compensate the injured person for his loss of time and provide for his medical care until he is completely healed. This is a case where there is no intent to kill, and it didn’t result in death. This is treated differently than murder. It's not a capital offense, but the person who caused the injury is still responsible for the consequences of his actions and has to make restitution.

So, what do we learn from these cases? We learn that these laws are  there to protect people, to preserve the sanctity of life, to ensure justice, and to promote a healthy society. These cases show us that there are different levels of offense, and the punishment should fit the crime. They also emphasize the importance of treating others with dignity and respect, whether it's an indentured servant, a daughter in an arranged marriage, or someone involved in a physical altercation. These laws reflect the principles of justice and righteousness that are foundational to our sense of justice to this day. However, it's worth noting that these laws were given specifically to the ancient Israelites and were part of their legal system at that time. While they provide valuable insights into the principles of justice and human rights, the application of these laws may vary in different cultural and legal contexts today. By today’s standards some of these laws may sound a little harsh to us because we've instituted laws that go beyond some of these things. But as compared to some of the laws of the day, that were practiced outside of Israel before this these laws are very tame by comparison. These laws are much more humane than laws coming from other Pagan societies around them. Now, it’s going to get really interesting in a minute. Look at verse 20:

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

(Exodus 20: 20-21)

Now, this one is really tricky, to modern ears. But where it gets really interesting is the next couple of verses.

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth premature but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Alright, two men get into a fistfight, and a pregnant woman gets hurt in the fracas, sound like my local pup on a Saturday night, or an episode of a soap opera. She’s an innocent bystander, but because of this fight, she gets hurt, and as a result, she gives birth to their baby prematurely. But neither her nor the baby are harmed. It was a healthy birth. Yet, the man who caused this situation still has to pay something.  What he has to pay is determined by the husband of the woman and the civil authorities, the judges, but he is obligated to pay some kind of fine because his actions caused her to give birth prematurely. Now, that is only when no harm follows. But, what if harm follows? What happens if there’s some other harm as a result of the premature birth, the baby is born disabled, or the woman fell and got hurt then the offender(s) received stripes, to the same degree as the woman or child was harmed. So whenever whatever their is harm there is a penalty. That sound a lot to me like, where there is blame there is a claim. This is at the heart of this concept. This is a call strict, fair  justice. So, if you cause the person to die, you die. If you cause the person to lose an eye, you lose an eye. If you cause the person to lose a tooth, you lose a tooth. If the person is burned, you get burned. If the person experiences stripes in any way, then you are given stripes also. It is tit for tat. And if either one of them dies, you shall die. 

An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

(Exodus 21: 26-27)

The servant gets to go free. So, this would obviously discourage physical abuse. If you were to strike your servant or your slave in this case, and he suffered some kind of harm like losing a tooth, you must grant him or her their freedom. So, he calls it a servant, but, this is referring to someone that is an indentured servant or maybe even a slave.

28 ‘If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death.

(Exodus 21: 28-29)

Alright, we've got to get some things straight here. This one is getting a little complicated. If a bull or an ox goes and, it gores a neighbour, and the neighbour is killed. Then in this circumstance, I don't have to pay a fine.  That just sounds contrary to everything that we've learned so far. Everything we've learned so far is I have a responsibility. Now, all of a sudden verse 28 it doesn’t seem to be the case. In order to understand verse 28, you must understand the next verse. But if the ox tended to be aggressive in times past, and it that had been known by the owner, and he has not kept it confined and it then killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and the owner shall be put to death. 

Verse 28 is talking about an animal that you had no way of knowing that is might kill somebody. So, in that case, you’re not liable. But if you knew that that the animal in the past, had gored people, and you didn't confine it, Then you are responsible because you didn’t take reasonable steps to prevent it. The you are responsible for death, and that is a capital offense.  The difference between verses 28 and 29 is that little key phrase : 'And it had not been known to its owner.' 

. 

However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. This law also applies if the bull gores a son or a daughter. If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.

(Exodus 21: 30-32)

What it's saying here is simply that the penalty can be paid as a fine of some kind, then the owner should have the freedom to redeem himself by paying the fine. And if it's a servant, then he can bail himself out by paying thirty shekels of silver. Who got thirty shekels of silver? Judas. So, what did he get for betraying the Lord? The price of a slave. Isn't that interesting? 

Let me see if I can sum all this. 

What I'm saying is this: Since people have rights, the one causing bodily injury must pay a penalty, and capital punishment is the ultimate penalty. But, the real point of this passage, I think, is that the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. That is the one thing, I think we should get out of this, it is that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You cause a loss, you lose. That's strict justice. And that is what this message is. This is very significant because in the ancient world, and in many places in the modern world, there is not strict justice. There is, in the name of justice, injustice. 

You may, in some places, steal, and instead of having to pay the money back, you might get your hand chopped off. That is a punishment that is not commensurate with the crime. What the Scripture teaches is that the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. The limit of Justice can never any more than an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. There is something in the Bible called justice.

Let me make one final  observation. A just society is governed by the rule of law, not the ruler. May I repeat that? We are a just society, supposed to be anyway, because we believe we are governed by the rule of law and not, as in times past, just by the current ruler. So, we need to establish law, apply it evenly, and live by it."