The Pulpit Commentary — Exodus — Volume 2 — Section 171

crrnnot summarily abolish without entailing on society worse evils than those fmm which escape is sought. But if the right to hold property in slaves-to however limite,cl. BO extent-be granted, the corollaries of this possession must be granted also. A slave cannot be treated in the eye of the law quite as a free man. His position is relatively a degraded one. The owner of slaves has pecuniary and proprietary rights in his bon<l- eervnnts, which the law must take account of. The slave is the owner's" rnonev." 2. Tho aim of the law is not to place the sla.ve a.t the master's mercy, but to r-, 8 1,·ict the master's power over him. Ancient law recognised no re~triction. The Mosaic l:i.w does. It goes at least thus far, that if the slave dies under the rod, the master shall be punished. The drift and bent of the law is for the slave's benefit. 3. It is important to remember that the case is treated here, not in its moral aspects, but solely as a question in criminal J°urisprudence. The moral law bas its own say in the matter, and pronounces its own judgment, irrespectively of whether the individual is proceedetl against under criminal law or not. 'fhe master who, by the undue exercise of the large right of chastisement which the usage of the time allowed him, occasioned his slave's death, was responsible to God for the excess of passion which led to this catastrophl'. The law of Mose1 gave no sanction to the master to endanger his servant's life with the rod. But moral offences do not always admit of being dealt with as crimes. To convict of murder, e.g., there is proof required of malice prepense, and this, in the case before us, was precisely what was not forthcoming. The legal tribunals had authority to punish the master, if the slave died under his hand; if immediate death did not take place, the master was to have the benefit of the doubt, and in view of the heavy money loss sustained in the death of the slave (on the average," thirty shekels of silver," ver. 32), was not to be further pro- ceeded age.inst. 4. The law in this verse-taken in conjunction with others-was really a powerful deterrent from the misuse of authority on the part of the master. (1) It relates only to chastisement with the rod. If the master assaulted his slave with any lethal weapon, the case came wider other laws, and might involve his being tried for murder. (2) The case supposed is that of a. slave dying under bona fide chastisement. If murderous intent could be proved against the master-whether the slave lingered a day or two or not-there is no reason to doubt but that the law of ver. 14 would have been applied, and the master would have been put to death. (3) Involving, as the death of the slave did, crimina.l proceedings, and, on conviction, severe punishment, the mere danger of a fate.I result ensuing would be a powerful deterrent from exceptional violence. The punishment appears to have been left to the discretion of the judges, and probably ranged from the death pena.lty (if deliberate murder could be proved), to a simple money :.fine. The mere risk of incurring such a penalty would inspire salutary caution. ( 4) The master a.lso knew that if, by his temporary violence, the slave should suffer selious bodily injury, he would be entitled, if he did not die, to claim his freedom (vers. 26, 27). The fear of losing a va.luable property, whether by death, or, if the slave did not die, in the way last mentioned, would infallibly co-operate with other motives in the direction of restraint. The case, therefore, stood thus, that failing proof of direct intent to murder, the probabilities were in favour of the theory that the death of the slave to whom severe chastisement had been administered, was a result not designed; and the money loss involved in the death of the slave being regarded as equivalent to a heavy :.fine, the law, in ordinary cases, did not see it nece=ry to go fw'ther. But if the case was so serious that the slave had actually died under his master's hand, or within a short space of time, then, whether the death was designed or not, the law took the matter up, and inflicted punishment according to discretion. Uriminal law could scarcely have done more. The amelioration of the condition of the slave was to be looked for mainly from moral influences, which, under the Mosaic system, were assuredly not wanting.-J. O. Vers. 23-26.-" An e'!JO for an eye," etc. (cf. Matt. v. 38--43). The principle here enunciated is that of the ;"us talionis. Stripped of its concrete form, it is simply the assertion of the dictate of justice, that when a wrong has been done to anyone, a.nd through him to society, an adequate compensation ought to be rendered. So rendered, it is the principle underlying every system of criminal jurisprudence. We need not suppose that (in Jewish society) it was ever literally acted upon. Commutations of various kinds would be admitted ( cf. ye~. 30). As a rule for courts of jn~tice, therefore, m1s  'T'lm nom, OF EXODUS. (en. :n.1. 1-17.