Thoughts on questions on Exodus 21:1-6

Someone reading Exodus 21:1-6 might have some questions of what its all about or how does it makes sense.

Here’s the passage:

Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them: 2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall leave as a free man without a payment to you. 3 If he comes alone, he shall leave alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall leave with him. 4 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 leave alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not leave as a free man,’ 6 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.

Here’s my thoughts:

1. Some might wonder why would the Bible talk about slavery in the Mosaic laws.  Let’s back up.  To not talk talk about slavery does not necessarily mean a society will be more just either in the Ancient Near East context.  Its also important to realize slavery then exist in the context where there is no statism with state welfare and church as a ministry of charity.  Between being a slave to another family versus starvation this was an economic institution that was for the poor.
2. Keep in mind this servanthood is also not the same institution as the slavery as people think of American slavery in Antebullum South, as we shall see when we get into more of the details.  For starters Exodus 21:16 prohibit kidnapping a person to make the victim a slave; note the penalty of such a sin is death.
3. Note here the nature of these laws are case laws; this here is not telling people they must have slave, but they are case laws in situations where there are slaves what are the regulations God has for masters; the “If” in verse 2 is important.
4. Its fascinating that this commentary of God’s law appear where it appears in the book of Exodus.  Earlier God has freed the Hebrews from slavery.  The Ten commandments was given in Exodus 20.  Here in the focused commentary on God’s laws with specific details the first topic is on slavery.  There seems to be here this being first given the Hebrews’ own experience of slavery.  In other words God wants to address this institution reflecting His concern for those who are enslaved.
5. The appearance of this being first of a priority is in contrast to other Ancient Near Eastern laws.  For instance the Law of Hammurabi and Law of Eshnunna the place for substantial slave laws appear in the end rather than beginning of their legal codes (Garrett, Exodus, 495-496).
6. Note verse 2 the limitation God place on slavery has temporal expiration: A slave must be freed in the seventh year.  It might be best to translate “servant” rather than slave given that its more accurately an indentured servitude.
7. When the term of service is over the end of verse 2 states to the master “he shall leave as a free man without a payment to you.”  A master cannot charge an extra fee on the slave to be freed.  Furthermore Deuteronomy 15:12-13 teaches that a master should give generously to the servant (Ryken, Exodus, 700).  This will allow the servant to start a new life!  Don’t forget that the Hebrews themselves got from the Egyptians gold and silver in Exodus 12:35-36 that would be important later on in their journey when they were freed (Ryken, Exodus, 700).
8. Verse 3 also protects the family of the servant (Ryken, Exodus, 701).  Two scenarios are given: “If he comes alone” and “if he is the husband of a wife.”  In the case of one who is single he leaves single but if he is married before being a servant he leaves with is family.  There is more consideration of the slave’s family than American slavery where slaves were sold as commodity without any consideration of families being broken apart, and cease being families.
9. Verse 4 can raise a lot of questions from people.  This here states that one who got married while a servant cannot leave with his wife and kids.  What’s going on here? It might be helpful to think about who can’t leave with this freed husband servant who just finish his obligation to his master, and secondly why.  This will then shape how we address ethical questions about verse 4.
   1. I think the woman here married to the servant is very likely another servant, specifically a female servant.  Note verse 4 opens up with “If his master gives him a wife.”  It is not usually customary to see a master gives his own daughter to his servant.  Note the end of verse 4 also suggests she’s a servant when it says “the wife and her children shall belong to her master.“
   2. If this woman married to the man-servant is also herself a servant that means she has obligation and commitment with her servitude to her employer (Ryken, Exodus, 701).  She’s obligated to finish up her contract.
   3. Verse 4 seems to guard against those who make commitments to their employer for a certain amount of years before it takes into effect but then later change the condition of their agreement with the loophole of getting married and having the commitment be shortened.
   4. Furthermore there’s a sense this law also exist in verse 4 to protect the servant’s family (his wife and kids).   Back in Old Testament times there was the existence of dowry a husband pays for a bride; see Exodus 22:16-17 as this being assumed.  This dowry is meant to protect the woman if something were to happen to her marriage (husband dies and therefore she has to return to her father’s household, abandonment, divorce, etc).  This payment is understood as something the father of the bride keeps for her, see how in Genesis 31:15 Leah and Rachel were upset with their father Laban using their dowry.  With this background keep in mind it is very likely the man-servant who got married to another servant might not have had a “good credit score” if he lived in our time; after all he was financially in distress enough to have sold himself voluntarily to be a servant.  As a servant he probably also didn’t provide a dowry for the financial security of the wife and kids if anything were to happen to him.  So given the legitimate concerns for his ability provide for himself let alone his family, verse 4 can be seen as additional protection for this family to have shelter, food, stability, security, etc.
10. Keep in mind even with the scenario where the man-servant is freed but his wife and kids are not, this should not be taken to mean that they cease being a family; in fact the opposite is implied.  Note verse 4 states “his wife”  and verse 5 he himself professes “my wife, and my children.“
11. Yet understanding who is the woman married to the servant and also why verse 4 exist as a law does not mean there’s no avenue for her and her family to be freed when her husband is also freed.  Leviticus 25:47-55 provide ways for a servant to be redeemed and freed (Ryken, Exodus 701).  The passage not only for one’s immediate family to free a member from servanthood but also extended relatives to participate in the redemption, opening more the probability of a servant to be freed with their time of service.
12. Also keep in mind that Exodus 20:1-6 deals with legal obligation; that doesn’t mean there can’t be a practice of grace on the part of the employer to free both spouses (Garrett, Exodus, 497).
13. Furthermore verses 5-6 gives another option the family can remain physically in proximity to one another (Garrett, Exodus, 497).
    1. The husband can continue to be a servant to the master in order to be with his wife and kids.  But the criteria is that he actually loves his master and wants to be his servant, see verse 5. Verse 5 states he must “plainly” say this, that is, clearly and without manipulation.
    2. Verse 6 is given to ensure that the master does not take advantage of the man-servant.  The man servant is to be appear before the town leaders for it says “his master shall bring him to God” (sometimes Elohim is used to refer to leaders of the people too).  This is a legal process with the leaders ensuring what’s really the case (Garrett, Exodus, 497).
    3. Why does the ceremony for permanence servitude take place at the door post (v.6)?  The door post represents the master’s house/family, in similar way that the city gates represents the city in official functions (Garrett, Exodus, 497).
    4. Also the ear being pierced is because the ear is a symbol of listening and obedience (Garrett, Exodus, 497).
14. This discussion should not be done in a vacuum.  A nonbeliever reading this and judging over God’s Word must give an account of morality that does not originate from the God of the BIble, if God Himself is rejected as the basis of morality.  See my Atheism and the problem of Morality on the problem.

Advertisement