Table of Contents
Copyrights

Exodus 21 - Commentary by Rev. John Schultz

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:30:59utc

Exodus 21

In this chapter and the following, we find more or less a repetition of the Ten Commandments in more elaborate form. The chapters read almost like a commentary on certain commandments. The commentary does not follow the commandments in chronological order, but seems to work from the top downwards, although not in a consistent way.

The commandments in this chapter pertain to the relationship between people. As in the last verses (22-26) of the last chapter, Moses finds himself inside the cloud while God is speaking to him. The content of this conversation covers the chapters 20:22 - 23:33. After that Moses is sent back down the mountain to call up the priests and the elders. We read in ch. 24:1, "Then he said to Moses, 'Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel.' "

The section of vs. 2-11 deals with slavery involving Hebrew men and women. Vs. 2-6 deals with the men and vs. 7-11with the women. The next section, from vs. 12-27 deals with hostile relationships among people. The last section of the chapter, from vs. 28-36, draws an animal into the picture, but the main theme is hostility among humans. Besides the practical regulations given in these verses, we find in them an object lesson of our relationship with God.

The subject of the verses 2-11 is slavery. It is obvious that slavery was not part of God's original plan of creation. Man, made in the image of God, is not born to be a slave. Before sin came into the world, there was not even any question of man ruling over other human beings. Adam was lord of the animal kingdom, not over Eve. After man had fallen into sin God said to Eve: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."[ 1 ] There is, however, no divine ordinance which introduces slavery.

On the other hand, this law condones slavery, or, at least, accommodates to it. In this respect the law falls under the same heading as divorce, of which Jesus says: "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."[ 2 ] In a certain way, the whole law is an adaptation to man's sinful condition. Without sin, there would have been no need for law; without doubt about it that slavery is related to sin.

The slavery mentioned in the vs. 2-6 was probably the result of economic hardship. The Hebrew servant was a man who had incurred debts and sold his services in order to pay off his debts. In some cases a man would be sold if he had committed a crime for which he could not compensate. Ch. 22:3 says: "A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft."

Adam Clarke remarks: "Calmet enumerates six different ways in which a Hebrew might lose his liberty: (1) In extreme poverty he might sell his liberty, Lev. xxv. 39; 'If thy brother ... be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee.' (2) A father might sell his children. 'If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant;' see v. 7. (3) Insolvent debtors became the slaves of their creditors. 'My husband is dead ... and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondsmen,' 2 Kings iv. 1. (4) A thief, if he had not money to pay the fine laid on him by the law, was to be sold for his profit whom he had robbed. 'If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft,' chap. xxii. 3-4. (5) A Hebrew was liable to be taken prisoner of war, and so sold for a slave. (6) A Hebrew slave who had been ransomed from a Gentile by a Hebrew might be sold by him who ransomed him, to one of his own nation."

The law emphasized the rights of the slave, not his obligations. The law is primarily addressed to the man who bought him, not to the slave who sold himself.

We have to bear in mind that if sin had not come into the world, the situation described here would never have occurred. The law is meant to curb the influence of sin and thus to limit the power of Satan over man.

The law pertained to Hebrews, that is, members of the people of God. The implication is that a child of God could be poor. The fact that we belong to God does not guarantee wealth. Some of God's children run up debts. The Bible does nowhere teach a theology of "Green Power." The section does suggest, however, that if we do end up in the red we should seek an honorable way to get out of it. It is better to sell yourself as a slave than to make others pay for the cost of running your life. There is such a thing as honorable slavery.

On the other hand, and this is the significance of this law, a master was not allowed to take advantage of the misery of his servant. A business contract had to be drawn up, limiting the period of servant-hood, which was seven years. After this period, the servant automatically received his freedom. It seems only right to us that his wife and children would be set free at the same time. But it strikes us as strange that the wife he might have married during his period of service and the children that were born during that time, would remain the property of the master. This stipulation seems to violate the sacredness of marriage. We have to remember, though, that the servant knew this would happen at the time he married the woman who, apparently, was also a slave of the same master. It is hard for us to bridge this gap, which was, obviously, a cultural one. It seems to have made sense to the people of that time.

In the parallel passage in Deuteronomy, the master was under obligation not only to restore freedom to his slave, but he also had to give him presents. We read there: "And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today."[ 3 ] In that section there is no question about leaving his own family, or even of having married and children being born during the six years of slavery. The love expressed there is, primarily, for the master and his family.

If we see slavery as a symbol of sin, the admonition in Deuteronomy "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you," contains a beautiful lesson. As people who have been redeemed from sin, we should relate to others, not as saints but as redeemed sinners. Jesus makes this clear in the parable of the slave who had been pardoned, but refused to pardon his fellow man.[ 4 ]

There is a clear connection between the time period the slave had to serve and his subsequent freedom and the Sabbath law. As there are six days of labor in a week and one day of rest, so in this arrangement there are to be six years of labor and then a Sabbath of freedom. This theme of six plus one runs through the whole of the Mosaic law. The seventh year is a year of rest for the farmer. The fiftieth year, that is the year after the seven times seventh year, is to be a year of general freedom from any kind of debt, a year of restoration.

That is why the Sabbath is connected, both to the seventh day of creation as well as to the liberation of the people from the slavery in Egypt, as we have already seen in a comparison between Exodus and Deuteronomy. And all this is a picture of the consummation of salvation, as is indicated in the epistle to the Hebrews, where we read: "Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, 'So I declared on oath in my anger, ''They shall never enter my rest.'' And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.' And again in the passage above he says, 'They shall never enter my rest.' It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.' For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience."[ 5 ]

There is a wealth of spiritual truth in these verses. The Hebrew man begins to serve his master because the master has paid his debt for him. That is understood, but he ends up serving the master because he loves him. We see in this a finger pointing from a situation on earth, in which a man has a debt he cannot pay, to man's spiritual condition. God has paid our debt for us. From this we draw the logical consequences that we owe Him our life. God has not paid our debt to make us slaves but to set us free. It is from this freedom that we can choose to love Him and to serve Him, not to pay Him back for His payment, but for His love. This becomes particularly relevant if we accept the fact that God has given us a wife and children. For women this would mean that God gives a husband and children. But it is, of course, just as pertinent for single people too.

We should pay attention to the sequence in the declaration of the servant. We read in vs. 5, "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free...' " The love for his family is preceded by his love for his master. We can only love our family if we love God first. No lasting love can exist outside the love of God. If we respond to His love by loving Him, He becomes for us the source of love. We may not give the love we owe to God to anybody else.

If the servant expresses clearly to his master that he does not want to go free, he has to repeat his statement in front of witnesses or judges. The Hebrew word here is El haelohim which, according to Adam Clarke, means "to the judgment of God" (or the gods, that is, the local authorities.) The obvious intent was to establish the fact that the slave willingly gave up his rights to freedom. The possibility would always exist that a master would force his slave to remain, if no public statement was required.

The following ear-piercing ceremony probably took place at the house of the master. The man was literally nailed to the house to indicate that he belonged there. He became a permanent fixture. But the hole in the ear also symbolized obedience to the master.

In the passage in which David prophecies the death of Jesus on the cross he says: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require."[ 6 ] And Isaiah describes Jesus' relationship with the Father with the words: "The Sovereign LORD has given me an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary. He wakens me morning by morning, wakens my ear to listen like one being taught."[ 7 ]

The writer to the Hebrews quotes Psalm 40, but with a remarkable and profound difference. He says: "Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am; it is written about me in the scroll; I have come to do your will, O God.' "[ 8 ] The difference between "my ears you have pierced" in the Psalms, and "a body you prepared for me," is derived from the fact that the author of the Hebrew epistle quotes the Greek text from the Septuagint.

This subtle difference in meaning suggests that the piercing of the ears is a picture of the sacrifice of Christ. We understand, of course, that the ear in this piercing ceremony stands for the whole body. In pledging total and lasting obedience, the slave surrendered his whole body to his master. It is Christ's obedience to the will of the Father that brought Him to the cross. The apostle Paul says the same: "He humbled himself and became obedient to death; even death on a cross!"[ 9 ]

If we do not see the spiritual significance of these passages, we might wonder why God called Moses up the mountain for an audience with Him, to talk about laws that seem to have peripheral meaning only. It is true that neither Moses nor any of the Israelites of that time, were in a position to understand the importance of what God was saying here. But God knew what He was talking about. The Father always speaks about His Son in the whole of the Old Testament. In this He is not any different from any earthly father. And we are not that different from Him!

Finally, all slaves who surrendered themselves out of love to their masters were marked for life in a way that was obvious to everybody who saw them. The hole in the ear gave them away. Our surrender to the Master, although not marked by outward signs, should not be less visible.

The next section, from vs. 7-11 pertains to the sale of a daughter by her father. Our problem with these verses is that we are culturally so far removed from the world of those days that we have a hard time understanding the lesson of this Scripture portion. We might accept slavery in the form it was described in the preceding verses. If a man gets in debt and sells himself, he does something to exonerate himself. But for a father to sell his own daughter because of financial hardship is something that goes completely against the grain of our modern mindset. If such a thing would happen in our day, we would condemn it in the strongest terms. But if we carry this condemnation back to the times of Moses, we have lost sight of the historical perspective. In some respects we are farther removed from Moses' world than the East is from the West.

The idea is that of a marriage, and, not necessarily, a monogamous one. There is nothing to indicate that the man who would buy the girl was not already married. Although this is not mentioned specifically, the family of the girl is probably severely strapped financially. The father of the bride marries off his daughter to get himself out of debt. This is what connects these verses to the preceding ones. We read: "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as manservants do." The intent is that the girl becomes the wife of the man who buys her and that this marriage cannot be annulled. These verses do not deal with slavery, as the preceding ones, but with marriage.

The positive point in this section is that the law protects the girl from the wiles of a man who wants to use her as he pleases. He cannot drop her like a rag when he does not want her any more. If he did desert her, the girl would regain her freedom automatically. The girl's rights are defined as: "food, clothing, and marital rights." This last term, according to Strongs Definitions Definition, refers to cohabitation.

Again, we ask ourselves the question why God brings up this subject in His conversation with Moses. It seems that there would be more important topics of revelation than this one. In this section too, God speaks about His Son. In the preceding verses the love of the slave portrayed the love and obedience of Christ. In these verses we read about the bride of Christ, for whom He paid the price and to whom He pledges allegiance. He will not break faith with her, as the man could do in vs. 8.

The girl came from a poor home. She grew up in misery and poverty and was sold to help pay the family debt. This symbol of human misery becomes one of the most glorious beings in the universe. The Apostle John describes in Revelation how the bride, the wife of the Lamb, shone with the glory of God.[ 10 ]

What is so difficult for us to grasp is that God uses, not the image of an honorable, monogamous marriage, but that of polygamy to portray the status of the church as the bride of Christ. The same principle seems to be underlying the message of the book The Song of Solomon. Not only is this law an accommodation to human sinful tendency, that which Jesus describes as "the hardness of your hearts," but it elevates this condition to the level of divine glory. Yet, polygamy was not part of God's original plan for man. Paul's directive to Timothy that the overseer must be "the husband of one wife"[ 11 ] makes clear what God's paradigm for the church is.

We could say that, in His conversation with Moses, God approaches the present sinful condition in which He finds His children and issues commandments that limit the damage until the time that the foundation of salvation is complete, that is, the moment that Jesus died on the cross. Rather than seeing in these laws a condoning of sinful conditions, we should take them to be efforts to heal and restore. In this particular case, the law does not sanction what the father who sells does, or what the man who buys does, but it protects the girl who is the victim.

Vs. 12-14 deal with manslaughter and murder. We read in vs. 12, "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." It becomes more and more obvious, as the giving of these commandments progresses that God does not condone sin. This law reaches back to the days of Noah when God told Noah: "From each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of each of his fellow men. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."[ 12 ] The emphasis in these verses is on the place of refuge in vs. 13.

The first instance of murder is in Genesis, where Cain kills Abel. We read: "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, 'Let's go out to the field.' And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him."[ 13 ] In that case God did not take Cain's blood in exchange for Abel's as is demanded in ch. 21:12. But, according to Jesus' warning to the people of His time, the whole human race will be held accountable for this first murder, and probably for all murders committed on earth. He says: "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."[ 14 ] Although the Jews of the first century had not personally killed Abel or Zechariah, the blood of these people would be upon them. Consequently, it will be upon us too, unless our guilt is canceled by the blood of Christ. The writer to the Hebrews says that we can come "to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel."[ 15 ]

We could say that the above shows us God's basic attitude toward sin. By breaking relations with God, Adam did not only bring death into the world for himself and all of humanity, as Paul states in Romans,[ 16 ] but he made each individual personally responsible for each death on earth. God considers us to belong to a race of murderers, unless, that is, we are covered by the blood of Christ.

In the verse we are studying, however, it is not imputed guilt, but direct guilt that counts. Here is a man, who intentionally kills someone else. For such a person, capital punishment is demanded.

The point of this section is not intentional murder, but manslaughter. We read in vs. 13, "However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate." The interesting phrase is, of course, "but God lets it happen." The KJV gives the more literal translation: "but God deliver him into his hand." The NIV gives, undoubtedly, the clearer meaning of the phrase. We could hardly suggest that God would hand a human being over to someone else, for the purpose of murdering him. What is meant is, what an Insurance Company calls, an Act of God.

In the case of involuntary manslaughter the guilty one has "to flee to a place I will designate." The book of Numbers elaborates on this point. God says there to Moses: "Select some towns to be your cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone accidentally may flee. They will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that a person accused of murder may not die before he stands trial before the assembly. These six towns you give will be your cities of refuge. Give three on this side of the Jordan and three in Canaan as cities of refuge."[ 17 ]

In Joshua these cities are identified. We read: "So they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali, Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah. On the east side of the Jordan of Jericho they designated Bezer in the desert on the plateau in the tribe of Reuben, Ramoth in Gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan in the tribe of Manasseh. Any of the Israelites or any alien living among them who killed someone accidentally could flee to these designated cities and not be killed by the avenger of blood prior to standing trial before the assembly."[ 18 ]

Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary records the following about refuge cities: "Judges controlled the entrance into the refuge cities. These were the cities where those who had committed accidental murder (manslaughter) could flee to safety. When the high priest of the nation died, refugees were free to go home without penalty <Ex. 21:12-14; Deut. 19:1-13>. Israel was responsible for keeping the roads to such cities as safe as possible so the fugitive could outrun the avenger-- the relative responsible for the fugitive's execution to repay the kinsman's death."

The idea of the avenger is, of course, quite foreign to us. The Hebrew word is ga'al, which, according to Strongs Definitions Definitions means, "to redeem (according to the Oriental law of kinship), i.e. to be the next of kin (and as such to buy back a relative's property, marry his widow, etc.)" This, evidently included avenging the death of a next of kin. The Bible nowhere appoints avengers. They were there on the basis of what Strong calls "the Oriental law of kinship." The fact that they existed and were able to carry out their avenging unpunished shows something of the raw life of ancient Biblical times. The intent of God's law here is to restrict "the law of the jungle." The Israelites were hot-blooded Orientals, who acted on their emotions. This kind of character is difficult for a Westerner to understand. If we do recognize its existence, we come to a better understanding of the background against which Jesus could be crucified on such a short notice. This state of affairs is, obviously, eons removed from our present condition in which murderers wait on death row for years.

When God calls for capital punishment of murderers, however, He seems to have in mind an execution by lawfully appointed authority, not a privately carried out mission of revenge.

The Nave's Topical Bible sees in Hebrews the cities of refuge as a type of the asylum we have when we hide ourselves in our Lord Jesus Christ. The verse says: "God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged."[ 19 ]

Nowhere in the Bible do we read of a law that defines the function of the horns of the altar as a place of refuge. Yet, the principle is clearly implied. It was probably an existing practice when the law was given on Mount Sinai. In vs.14 God says: "But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

The only instances recorded of people fleeing to the altar and grabbing the horns are found in I Kings: "But Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar,"[ 20 ] and, "When the news reached Joab, who had conspired with Adonijah though not with Absalom, he fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar."[ 21 ] Both are, ironically, examples of people who were executed anyway. But this in no way takes away anything of the spiritual lesson implied in the act of fleeing to the altar for protection. The altar, being a picture of the cross of Christ, we should take a firm hold of the horns of this altar and cling to the old rugged cross for our protection and our very life. We are all guilty, and if we let go of the horns of the altar we will surely die. As in the days of the law, the ga'al, the next of kin, who is our Redeemer, will be the avenger for us, if we are not at the place where we are supposed to be. That is why "The kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?' "[ 22 ]

Ch. 21:15 reads: "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death." The word translated with "attack" is nakah which, according to Strongs Definitions Definitions means, "to strike (lightly or severely, literally or figuratively)." How severe the striking can be is clear from the fact that it is used of Moses killing the Egyptian in ch. 2:12.

The Pulpit Commentary says the following about this verse: "To 'smite' here is simply to 'strike'- to offer the indignity of a blow - not to kill, which had already been made capital (ver. 12), not in the case of parents only, but in every case. The severity of the law is very remarkable, and strongly emphasizes the dignity and authority of parents. There is no parallel to it in any other known code, though of course the patria potestas of the Roman father gave him the power of punishing a son who had struck him, capitally."

This law is the other side of the coin of the fifth commandment: "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."[ 23 ]

To our modern ears this commandment sounds unusually harsh. As a matter of fact, on our present day children can sue their parents if they receive corporal punishment, but there is no law against a child hitting his parent. Paul's admonition, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right,"[ 24 ] is, of course, completely out of the picture. The whole concept that the family is an image of our relationship with God has gone out of the window. When Dan Quale, who was then Vice President of the USA, criticized the TV program Murphy Brown for exalting single parenthood, he was asked what planet he came from. We learn that God is our father and that we are His children within the framework of the family. Parenthood is a picture of the reality of God and so is the relationship between a child and his parents. So, in the eyes of God, a child who raises his hands against his parents, raises his hand against God.

The problem, however, is that there are no perfect parents and no ideal families. That is why Paul, after admonishing children to obey their parents, adds, "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord."[ 25 ] J.B. Phillips translates this verse as follows: "Father, do not overcorrect your children or make it difficult for them to obey the commandment. Bring them up with Christian teaching in Christian discipline."

The importance of this law for us is to recognize hatred toward parents as a sin. This does not mean that we have to accept parental authority without any questioning. This study is not the place to enter into the complex problems of psychological guilt an adult may struggle with because of faulty relationships with parents during childhood. It is true that the reality of our relationship with God can suffer severely because of faulty signals we received as a child from our parents, who were supposed to present a true picture of what God was like. This commandment gives us the framework of the relationship between parent and child. The relationship will only work in an atmosphere of unconditional love. Where that love is absent, the whole of reality is pulled out of whack.

This commandment should be linked to the one following in vs. 17. "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." Here the connection between the image of the earthly relationship and the reality of the heavenly One becomes even more evident. A child who curses his parents uses the name of the Lord in order to jeopardize his salvation. The intent of the law may have been more the attitude of denial of such a relationship rather than an actual physical lifting up of a child's hand against his parents.

The family bond is meant to be an area of security. The strength of fatherly love and protection is needed to give a child a sense of being safe in a hostile world. A child without a father stands naked in the cold. The warmth of motherly love is meant to give a child the emotional security of feeling loved because of what he is. Both needs are indispensable in the healthy growth of a child into adulthood. When a child feels that the wall of protection is a limitation of his abilities and he wants to break out of it prematurely, he harms himself. There should come a point in the life of every young adult at which he feels he should leave his father and mother and become what he was meant to be. But, even then, the old fences should not be torn down, as if they never had any value. The Dutch poet, Herman Marsman, wrote: "I want to live grandiosely and impressively. Do you hear that, father, mother, house of dead bones?" The problem is, of course, that some fences do enclose dead bones. Parental authority should not be extended beyond the limit or be used to crush instead of to invigorate. But even if parental authority is felt to be a yoke, it may be better to bear it than to shake it off prematurely. Matthew Henry astutely remarks: "What yoke will those bear that have shaken off this?" Modern psychology sometimes errs in this realm.

Between the verses on the negative side of family relationship, we find a verse on kidnapping. Vs. 16 reads: "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." The verse seems to be out of context as it is sandwiched between two verses regarding the relationship between a child and his parents. It could be, however, that the change of subject and then the coming back to the previous subject are meant to throw light on the other two. It is the attitude of deception of a man who lures his fellowman into a situation in which he loses his independence and liberty that may be the theme in the two surrounding verses also. Unhealthy family relations are a result of sin that came into the world. The devil breaks up families, and he conditions man for this break-up by propaganda that says that family bonds are no good to start with anyhow. That is the deception which is highlighted in these verses.

That all these wrong attitudes are a result of demonic propaganda does not absolve man of personal responsibility for his sins, of course.

The regulations in vs. 18 - 27 are regarding violent offenses that do not lead to death. They involve free people, slaves and pregnant women. The first one is between two men who get into an argument with one another and, when tempers flare up, one hits the other. "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist…" is a typical scene of two people losing their temper. There was no pre-meditation. Both men just lost control of themselves. It is usually two who lose control. If only one does, the argument rarely becomes a physical struggle. The Holy Spirit is, obviously, absent. Paul tells us: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."[ 26 ] Where the Spirit of God is not present things get out of hand.

The intent of this paragraph is that not all quarreling precedes murder. In a certain way, all fights are murders. People who really love each other will not start to fight. The apostle John says: "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous."[ 27 ] The child of God ought to be ready to give his life for his fellow man. Again, it is John who says: "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers."[ 28 ] Love does not flare up and injure the other one. Love is rather injured than the cause of injury.

Bad temper, however, is not treated by God in the same way as murder or hatred. A man who does not control his temper is held responsible for his actions, but he is not treated as a murderer.

It is interesting to read that "the one who struck the blow must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed." Evidently, the concept that "time is money" is not merely a Western idea.

In vs. 20 a man who kills his slave is to be punished. The law does not spell out the punishment in this verse, but from the context we understand that the owner of the slave would have to be executed. Verses 23-25 say: "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." In vs. 22 we find the clause "whatever the court allows." This would indicate that there is a body of judges that hands out verdicts in all of the cases mentioned in these chapters.

The question remains as to why the Lord brought up this topic in His conversation with Moses. The main topic is, obviously, justice. In breaking the bond of fellowship with God, Adam ruined relationships among all human beings. God's pattern would have been a bond of love among all humans. The term "One Happy Family" has been used in a sarcastic sense, because in the reality of daily life there is very little unity and brotherly love.

David says, longingly:

"How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!

It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard,

running down on Aaron's beard,

down upon the collar of his robes.

It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion.

For there the LORD bestows his blessing,

even life forevermore."[ 29 ]

And in his Ode to Joy, which Beethoven immortalized in his Ninth Symphony, Schiller wants "all men to become brethren" under the wings of the Greek goddesses of joy. But, even if Schiller and Beethoven may have missed the mark, this does not detract in any sense from God's purpose with men. In the Old Testament God tells His people: "Love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."[ 30 ] This is followed in the New Testament by a multitude of exhortations, of which we only designate a few:

- "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves."[ [ 31 ]

- "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."[ 32 ]

- "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love."[ 33 ]

- "From Him [Jesus] the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."[ 34 ]

- "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right."[ 35 ]

- "Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart."[ 36 ]

- "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."[ 37 ]

- "This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another."[ 38 ]

We can see Moses on the mountain in the presence of God in a state of ecstasy. The mundane affairs of quarrels and fights must have been far from his mind. He is in the presence of Him, who is the essence and source of love. But God is a realist. He knows what is going on down below in the valley.

A parallel in Scripture is the contrast between the scene of Jesus' transfiguration on the mountain and the father with the demon-possessed boy in the valley below. Even Jesus, as a man, had trouble adapting Himself to the darkness to which the enemy confines man in this world. When He hears that His disciples were unable to conquer the enemy He exclaims: "O unbelieving and perverse generation ... how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me."[ 39 ]

The laws God gave to Moses govern human behavior in a pragmatic way. In the various happenings, which we would call "accidents," He says to Moses: "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" (Vs. 23-25).

It seems that Jesus overrules these commandments when He says: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."[ 40 ] We have to make a distinction, however, between what God commands as a punishment for the perpetrator and what the victim may choose to do. Jesus penetrates to the core of the matter, by showing that all sinful behavior is backed up by demonic activity. This does not mean that an evil doer is not responsible for his actions. We are responsible for our acts, but we did not create our own sinful nature. The victim of evil has the power to defeat the enemy by choosing not to take revenge. This is what the apostle Paul means when he says: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."[ 41 ]

None of the laws in this section condone the present sinful condition of this world. Slavery, as we have seen already, was not according to the will of God, nor was fighting and abortion. Even revenge, as the Bible in its complete message makes clear, is not according to the character of God. All these commandments are accommodations to the present evil situation. The intent is to limit the damage, not to sanction the condition. Even on the summit of Mount Sinai God intended to make a new heaven and a new earth.

It is also obvious that many of the rules that are spelled out here were already existing practices among the people. A man who caused an abortion in his neighbor's wife would have been held accountable by the husband, even before Sinai. The clause, "the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows," suggests that the woman's husband might have made excessive demands upon the man who caused the abortion. This law gave the perpetrator the right to appeal. Vs. 26 and 27 suggest that some masters were cruel in punishing their slaves. God protects the slaves from this kind of excessive punishment by ordering freedom for slaves who were subjected to heavy physical abuse.

The regulations in vs. 28 - 36 cover more than just the damage in human lives caused by a goring bull. It pertains to everything for which one human being can sue someone else. God draws a clear line between that for which we will be held responsible and that which is beyond our control. An Israelite could sue his neighbor for negligence, but not just for accidents of any kind. In our age in which law suits have grown to proportions that are ridiculous, this law of the goring bull and the uncovered pit is very relevant.





[ 1 ] Gen. 3:16[ b ]

[ 2 ] Matt. 19:8

[ 3 ] Deut. 15:13-15

[ 4 ] See Matt. 18:23-31

[ 5 ] Heb. 4:3-11

[ 6 ] Ps. 40:6

[ 7 ] Isa. 50:4

[ 8 ] Heb. 10:5-7

[ 9 ] Phil. 2:8

[ 10 ] Rev. 21: 9,10

[ 11 ] I Tim. 3:2

[ 12 ] Gen. 9:5,6

[ 13 ] Gen. 4:8

[ 14 ] Matt. 23:35

[ 15 ] Heb. 12:24

[ 16 ] Rom. 5:12

[ 17 ] Num. 35:11-14

[ 18 ] Josh. 20:7-9

[ 19 ] Heb. 6:18

[ 20 ] I Kings 1:50

[ 21 ] I Kings 2:28

[ 22 ] Rev. 6:15-17

[ 23 ] Ex. 20:12

[ 24 ] Eph. 6:1

[ 25 ] Eph 6:4

[ 26 ] Gal. 5:22,23

[ 27 ] I John 3:10-12

[ 28 ] I John 3:16

[ 29 ] Ps. 133:1-3

[ 30 ] Lev. 19:18

[ 31 ] Rom. 12:9-10

[ 32 ] Rom. 13:10

[ 33 ] Gal. 5:13

[ 34 ] Eph. 4:16

[ 35 ] James 2:8

[ 36 ] I Pet. 1:22

[ 37 ] I Pet. 4:8

[ 38 ] I John 3:11

[ 39 ] Matt 17:17

[ 40 ] Matt. 5:38-42

[ 41 ] Rom. 12:21

Copyright (c) 1999, 2000
E-sst, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Please see the License at Copyrights for restrictions and limitations
Note: Copyright does not apply to KJV text.

Table of Contents
Copyrights