The Pulpit Commentary — Exodus — Volume 2 — Section 169

C',·er~- nrgnment at.tempted to be deduced from them in favour of modem sl:we-holding. (\\11 t hC' fallncy of all such Rrguments, bl\~ecl. on the stl\te of matters in primith·e soC'iet~-. ~cc Maine'~" Ancient LRw," pp. 162-lf>G.) The Mosaic lRw did not establish sla..-er~·--at most it !l.)Cordecl. to it I\ very modified toleration. It accepted it as 1\11 existing 11Rage, labouring t.o the utmost to reduce, and as far as that WI\S practicable to nholish, the evils connected "',jth it. Jt could not well do more, for sliwery, under the then exi~tiug conditions of society, was in some form or other almost inevitable, and w:ts often the only alternative to a worse evil. Yet the law in its entire syirit nnd !uncl.amentnl doctrines was opposed to slavery. Its doctrines of the dignity o man as made in God'6 image, and of the descent of all mankind from one pair, contained in principle the recognition of every human right. As a member of the theocracy, redeemed by Jehovah for himself, every Israelite wa.s free by constitutional right (see the emphatic annunciation of this principle in Lev. xxv. 42, 55; xxvi. 13). If from temporary causes, the Hebrew lost the use of his freedom, the right to it was not thereby destroyed. It returned to him at the beginning of the seventh year. A law can hardly be regarded as favourable to slavery which makes man-stealing a crime punish- able by death (ver. 18), and which enacts that a fugitive slave, ta.king refuge in Israel from his heathen master, is not to be delivered back to him, but is to be permitted to reside where he will in the lanJ (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16). Bondsmen (both Hebrew and non-Israelite) were incorporated as part of the nation, had legal rights, sat with the other members of the family at the board of the passover, took part in all religious 1estn·als, and had secured to them the privilege of the Sabbath rest. The master wns responsible for the treatment of his slave; and if he injured him, even to the extent of smiting out a tooth, the slave thereby regained his freedom (vers. 26, 27). A female sla\'e was to be treated with strictest honour (vers. 7-11), and with due consideration for her womanly feelings (Deut. xx.i. 1~15). Humanity and kindness are con- stantly inculcated. When the l'!lebrew bondsman went out in the seventh year he was to go forth loaded with presents (Deut. x:v. 13-16). The legislation of Moses is thus seen to be studiously directed to the protection of the slave's interests and rights. If there is a. seeming exception, it is the one precept in ver. 20, on which see below. The law a.s a. whole must be admitted to be framed in the spirit of the ii;reatest tenderness and consideration, recognising the servant's rights as a man, bis privileges as a member of the theocracy, bis feelings as a husband and father. As respects the Hebrew bondsman, indeed, his position did not greatly differ from that of one now who sells his labour to a particular person, or engages to work to him on definite terms for a stated period (Fairbairn). He could be reduced to servitude only by debt, or as the penalty fo1 theft. In this latter case ( eh. xxii. 3), liberty was justly forfeited-is forfeited still in the case of those convicted of felony, and doomed to compulsory labours, or to trans- )>Ortation, or lengthenetl terms of imprisonment. The laws in the present section embrace three ca.ses-1. That of the Hebrew servant who is 1inmarried (ver. 2). He goes out at the beginning of the seventh year. 2. That of the Hebrew servant who is r,UJ,rri,ed,. In this case, if the wife came in with her husband, she goes out with him in the year of release (ver. 3); but if his master has given him a wife-presumably a non- lsraelite-be has not the privilege of taking her with him when he leaves. He may, however, elect to remain in his master's service, in which case his servitude becomes perpetual (vers. 5, 6). The retention of the wife may appear oppressive, but it was, as Keil points out, "an equitable consequence of the possession of property of slaves at all." 3. The third c.ase is that of a Hebrew daughter, sold by her father to be a maid- servant, i.e., as the sequel shows, as a housekeeper and concubine (vers. 7-12). The roaster may betroth her to himself, or may give her to his son, but in either case the law strictly guards her honour and her rights. If her full rights a.re not accorded her, sht is entitled to her freedom (ver. 11). Lessons. (1) Ver. 2.-The natural right of mar t,o his freedom. (2) Ver. 5.-Recognition of the slave's personality. "In modern systems, the man is a mere chattel, but in the Mosaic system, the slave's manhood is declared. He is sovereign over himself, and is allowed the power of choice. The Southern slaveholder would not permit his slave to say, 'I will not'; but the Hebrew slave is permitted to say, 'I lov!l my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free'" (Burrowti). (3) Vers. 5, 6.-Love, the true reconciler between servitude aud freedom. Paul the" slave" of-Christ, yet the truest frecmau. (4) Jehovah's caro en. u:1. 12-3G.l THF, TIOOK OF F.Xonrnt ---------------------- ----------- for the unfriended. This comes beautifully out in the law for the protection of the woman.-J. 0. Vere. 12-18.-Murder and related capital offences. It iR characteriRtic of the law of Moses that its first care, in the practical ordering of the Hebrew theocracy, is for t",.e rights of the elo.ve. These o.re dealt with in the opening paragraphs. The next laws relnte to murder, to man-stealing, and to smiting and cursing of po.rents. I. MURDER (vers. 12-15). The same spirit of justice which attaches severe pcnn:ties to proved crimes, leads to the drawing of a sound line of distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions. Only for actions of the former class is the individual held responsible. Homicide which is purely accidental is not treated 'ls a crime (ver. 13). Not only is the man "ltho kills his nei11:hbour inadvertently not punished with death, bnt the law interposes to protect him from the fury of such as might unjustly seek his life, by appointing for him a place of refuge. (Cf. Nurn. xxxv.; Deut. xix.) '!'he deliberate murderer, on the other hand, was to be taken even from God's nltar, and put to death (ver. 14). Deliberate murder implies "malice ati,re- thought "-" intent to kill "-but it was sufficient to expose a man to the penalty attaching to this crime, that he had been guilty of an act of violence, resulting in another's death (ver. 12; cf. vers. 19, 23). Note on this law-1. The recognition of Divine Providence in the so-called accidents of life (ver. 13). 2. The sacredness attached to the human person. The religious ground of the enactment is given in Gen. ix. 6-" Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." "The true Shechinah is man" (Chrysostom). 3. The ethical character of the Hebrew religion. The altar is to afford no sanctuary to the murderer. The Bible knows nothing of a religion which is in divorce from morality. '!'his law condemns by implication all connivance at, or sheltering of, immorality, untlcr religious sanctions (Romish huckstering of pardons, etc.). II. MAN-STEALING (ver. 16). The statute is perfectly general. There is no evidence that it applied only to Hebrews, though these are specially mentioned in Deut. xxiv. i. 'l'he stealing and selling of a Hebrew wa~ a direct offence against Jehovah. (Cf. Lev. xxv. 42.) "For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the laud of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondsmen." The passage is a direct condemnation of the modem slave trade .. III. SllllTING AND CURSING OF PARENTS (vers. 15--17). These offences also were to be punished with death. The fact that they are bracketed in the law with murder and manstealing, gives a peculiar impression of their enormity. As if the statute book ha(l said, after laying down the law for murder-" And for the purposes of this law, the smiting or cursing of a father or a. mother shall be regarded as equivalent to the t.alring of a life." And this view of the matter is, in a moral respect, hardly too strong. It would be difficult to say what crime a man is not capable of, who could deliberately smite or curse father or mother. As special reasons for the severity of the la.w, observe -1. Hebrew society rested largely on a patriarchal basis, and the due maintenance of parental authority was a necessity of its existence. Just as it is found still that, whatever the form of social order, the spread of a spirit of insubordination to parents is the invariable prelude to a universal loosening of ties and obligations. 2. Parents are regarded as standing to their children in the relation of visible representatives of Jehovah'(see fifth commandment). This, in the Hebrew theocracy, gave to the crime of cursing or smiting a parent the character of a. treasonable act. It was an offence against the majesty of Jehovah, and as such, required to be promptly avenged. On the same ground it was forbidden to revile magistrates, or curse the ruler ot" the people (eh. xxii. 28). '!'he law is a standing testimony to the heinowmess attaching in the sight of God to the sin of filial disobedience.-J. 0. Vers. 18-36.-Bodily injuries. The laws in this section may be thus classified:- I. INJURIES BY MAN. 1. Strivers (vers. 18, 19). The man who injured another in strife was required to pay for the loss of his time, and to cause him to be thoroughly healed. Had the man died, the case would have come under the law of ver. 12. A8 it was, blame attached to both parties, and the law waived the right to further satisfaction. Note-(1) One way of atoning for wrong is to seek in every way in our power to tt11<w EXODUS-II, Ill lill THE nooK OF EXODU~. [err. nr. 18--..16.