| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Exodus Chapter
Twenty-one
Exodus 21
Chapter Contents
Laws respecting servants. (1-11) Judicial laws. (12-21)
Judicial laws. (22-36)
Commentary on Exodus 21:1-11
(Read Exodus 21:1-11)
The laws in this chapter relate to the fifth and sixth
commandments; and though they differ from our times and customs, nor are they
binding on us, yet they explain the moral law, and the rules of natural
justice. The servant, in the state of servitude, was an emblem of that state of
bondage to sin, Satan, and the law, which man is brought into by robbing God of
his glory, by the transgression of his precepts. Likewise in being made free,
he was an emblem of that liberty wherewith Christ, the Son of God, makes free
from bondage his people, who are free indeed; and made so freely, without money
and without price, of free grace.
Commentary on Exodus 21:12-21
(Read Exodus 21:12-21)
God, who by his providence gives and maintains life, by
his law protects it. A wilful murderer shall be taken even from God's altar.
But God provided cities of refuge to protect those whose unhappiness it was,
and not their fault, to cause the death of another; for such as by accident,
when a man is doing a lawful act, without intent of hurt, happens to kill
another. Let children hear the sentence of God's word upon the ungrateful and
disobedient; and remember that God will certainly requite it, if they have ever
cursed their parents, even in their hearts, or have lifted up their hands
against them, except they repent, and flee for refuge to the Saviour. And let
parents hence learn to be very careful in training up their children, setting
them a good example, especially in the government of their passions, and in
praying for them; taking heed not to provoke them to wrath. Through poverty the
Israelites sometimes sold themselves or their children; magistrates sold some
persons for their crimes, and creditors were in some cases allowed to sell
their debtors who could not pay. But "man-stealing," the object of
which is to force another into slavery, is ranked in the New Testament with the
greatest crimes. Care is here taken, that satisfaction be made for hurt done to
a person, though death do not follow. The gospel teaches masters to forbear,
and to moderate threatenings, Ephesians 6:9, considering with Job, What shall
I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13,14.
Commentary on Exodus 21:22-36
(Read Exodus 21:22-36)
The cases here mentioned give rules of justice then, and
still in use, for deciding similar matters. We are taught by these laws, that
we must be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly. If we
have done wrong, we must be very willing to make it good, and be desirous that
nobody may lose by us.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Exodus》
Exodus 21
Verse 1
[1] Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before
them.
The first verse is the general title of the laws
contained in this and the two following chapters. Their government being purely
a theocracy; that which in other states is to be settled by human prudence, was
directed among them by a divine appointment. These laws are called judgments;
because their magistrates were to give judgment according to them. In the
doubtful cases that had hitherto occurred, Moses had particularly enquired of
God, but now God gave him statutes in general, by which to determine particular
cases. He begins with the laws concerning servants, commanding mercy and
moderation towards them. The Israelites had lately been servants themselves,
and now they were become not only their own matters, but masters of servants
too; lest they should abuse their servants as they themselves had been abused,
provision was made for the mild and gentle usage of servants.
Verse 2
[2] If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve:
and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
If thou buy an Hebrew servant — Either sold by him or
his parents through poverty, or by the judges for his crimes, yet even such a
one was to continue in slavery but seven years at the most.
Verse 6
[6] Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he
shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall
bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
For ever — As long as he lives, or till the year of Jubilee.
Verse 8
[8] If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to
himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation
he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Who hath betrothed her to himself — For a concubine, or
secondary Wife. Not that Masters always took Maid-servants on these terms.
Verse 9
[9] And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal
with her after the manner of daughters.
After the manner of daughters — He shall give her a
portion, as to a daughter.
Verse 20
[20] And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod,
and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Direction is given what should be done, if a servant died
by his master's correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a
Gentile slave, as the Negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite
him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound,
yet if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the
discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances.
Verse 24
[24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot,
Eye for eye — The execution of this law is not
put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself,
which would introduce universal confusion. The tradition of the elders seems to
have put this corrupt gloss upon it. But magistrates had an eye to this rule in
punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured.
──
John Wesley《Explanatory Notes on Exodus》
21 Chapter 21
Verse 1
These are the Judgments.
The judgments
These judgments stood related to the second table of the Law, just
as the regulations concerning the worship of the altar stood related to the
first. It is to be remembered also that these “judgments,” and those of the
same kind which afterward were added as occasion arose, are to be distinguished
from the moral law, not only as applying to the state rather than the
individual, but also as local and temporary in their nature, representing not
what was ideally best, but only what was then practically possible in the
direction of that which was best. Some very superficial people criticise them
as if they were intended for the nineteenth century! The Decalogue was, and is,
intrinsically perfect; the “judgments” were adapted to the circumstances and
wants of Israel at the time. And it would be a good thing if reformers of
modern times would always remember the same wise and necessary distinctions,
between that which is ideally perfect and that which alone may be practically
possible. Still further it is to be remembered, that these judgments were
suitable to “the Theocracy” of Israel; and hence those are entirely
wrong who attempt to use them as precedents for general legislation in the
limited monarchies and republican governments, and otherwise entirely altered
circumstances, of modern times. Yet if we could only compare these “judgments”
with the laws and customs of the nations around, we should see by force of
contrast how exceedingly pure, wise, just, and humane they are; and especially
where private relations are dealt with, we have touches which would not shame
the New Testament itself, however much they may in another sense shame us, as
for instance Exodus 23:4-5. The third division of the
book of the covenant has to do with matters which relate neither to worship
exclusively, nor to civil relations exclusively, but to both. These are the
Sabbath year, the Sabbath day, and the yearly festivals (Exodus 23:10-19). As for the Sabbath year
and the festivals, they will come up again in the fuller details given from the
tabernacle and recorded in Leviticus. And as for the Sabbath day, we may simply
remark the significance of its presence here in the book of the covenant, as
well as in the Decalogue, indicating that while in its principle it belongs to
universal and unchangeable law, in its letter it formed part of that national
covenant which was merged in the new and better covenant of the later
age. (J. M. Gibson, D. D.)
The Hebrew commonwealth founded on religion
There is a very common reflection upon the Hebrew lawgiver, which,
though it does not call in question any particular law, is yet designed to
vitiate and weaken the impression of the whole--that he was a stern and
relentless ruler, who may indeed have understood the principles of justice, but
whose justice was seldom tempered with mercy. This impression is derived partly
at least from the summary way in which in several instances he dealt with
rebellion. To this kind of argument there is one brief and sufficient answer:
All bodies of men are acknowledged to have the right to resort to severe
penalties when encompassed by extraordinary dangers. The children of Israel
were in a position of great peril, and their safety depended on the wisdom and
firmness of one man. Never had a ruler a more difficult task. Moses did not
legislate for the ideal republic of Plato, a community of perfect beings, but
for a people born in slavery, from which they had but just broken away, and
that were in danger of becoming ungovernable. Here were two millions and a half
who had not even a settled place of abode, mustered in one vast camp, through
which rebellion might spread in a day. Moses had to govern them by his single
will . . . To preserve order, and to guard against hostile attacks, all the men
capable of bearing arms were organized as a military body . . . He suppressed
rebellion as Cromwell would have suppressed it: he not only put it down, but
stamped it out; and such prompt severity was the truest humanity. But it is not
acts of military discipline that provoke the criticism of modern humanitarians,
so much as those religious laws which prescribed the God whom the Hebrews
should worship, and punished idolatry and blasphemy as the greatest of crimes.
This, it is said, transcends the proper sphere of human law; it exalts
ceremonies into duties, and denounces as crimes acts which have no moral wrong.
Was not, then, the Hebrew law wanting in the first principle of justice--freedom
to all religions? Now it is quite absurd to suppose the Hebrews had
conscientious scruples against this worship, or seriously doubted whether
Jehovah or Baal were the true God. They had been rescued from slavery by a
direct interposition of the Almighty, they had been led by an Almighty
Deliverer; and it was His voice which they heard from the cliffs of Sinai. But
it was not merely because their religion was true, and the only true
worship, that they were required to accept it; but because also of the peculiar
relation which its Divine Author had assumed towards the Hebrew state as its
founder and protector. They had no king but God; He was the only Lord. As such,
no act of disobedience or disrespect to His authority could be light or small.
Further: the unity of God was a centre of unity for the nation. The state was
one because their God was one. The worship of Jehovah alone distinguished the
Hebrews from all other people, and preserved their separate nationality. Admit
other religions, and the bond which held together the twelve tribes was
dissolved. How long could that union have lasted if the prophets of Baal had
had the freedom of the camp and been permitted to go from tribe to tribe and
from tent to tent, preaching the doctrine of human sacrifices? Hence Moses did
not suffer them for an hour. False prophets were to be stoned to death . . .
Such was the Hebrew commonwealth, a state founded in religion. Was it therefore
founded in fanaticism and folly, or in profound wisdom and far-seeing sagacity?
“Religion, true or false,” says Coleridge, “is, and ever has been, the centre
of gravity in a realm, to which all other things must and will accommodate
themselves.” Would it not be well if some of our modern pretenders to
statesmanship did not so completely ignore its existence and its power? The
religion which Moses gave to the Hebrews was not one merely of abstract ideas;
it was incarnated in an outward and visible worship by which it addressed the
senses. Even in the desert the tabernacle and the altar were set up, and the
daily sacrifice was offered; the smoke and the incense below ascending towards
the pillar of cloud above, and the fire on the altar answering to the pillar of
fire in the midnight sky. This daily and nightly worship made religion a real
because a visible thing; it appealed to the senses and touched the imagination
of the people, and held their spirits in awe. The feeling that God dwelt in the
midst of them inspired them with courage for great efforts and great
sacrifices. (H. M. Field, D. D.)
If thou buy an Hebrew servant.
Slavery and sovereignty
These judgments of God are the declarations of human rights.
I. These judgments
dealt with an existing institution. The circumstances under which an Hebrew
might be reduced to servitude were--
1. Poverty.
2. The commission of theft.
3. The exercise of paternal authority.
II. This admitted
institution does not sanction modern slavery. There is in the Divine revelation
a spirit ever working to the enfranchisement of the race. More closely consider
the conditions of Mosaic slavery--
III. This system
asserted the slave’s personal sovereignty. 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 love my master, my wife, and my children; I will
not go out free.”
IV. This system
declared the slave’s right to be a man of feeling. The man was not to be
separated from the wife he had chosen prior to his days of servitude. This part
of the Mosaic regulations would not harmonize with the painful scenes which
took place at slave marts.
V. This system
proclaimed the slave’s right to freedom, and that it is the highest condition.
The Hebrew slave worked on to the day of happy release. This term of service
was no longer than a modern apprenticeship. The bells of the seventh year rang
out the old order of slavery, and rang in the new glorious order of freedom.
VI. This system
typically sets forth that the service of love is the highest, and alone
enduring. He only was to serve “for ever” who chose continued servitude on
account of love to his master, and love to his wife and his children. The
service of love outstrips in dignity and surpasses in duration all other forms
of service. (W. Burrows, B. A.)
Attachment to a master
The following anecdote is furnished by an officer who went through
the campaign in Egypt against the French in the time of the first Napoleon. “I
am glad,” he says, “to recall to my memory the remembrance of a deed done by a
brave and faithful servant. While in Egypt, the plague broke out in the 2nd
Regiment of Guards. A large tent was immediately set apart as a hospital for
the stricken. It was, naturally, regarded with extreme dread by the unfortunate
sufferers, who despaired of ever leaving it alive. The surgeon of the Guards,
discovering that he had symptoms of the disorder about him, bravely gave
himself up as an inmate of the plague tent. His servant, who was greatly
attached to him, was in despair. ‘At least,’ he said, ‘let me go with you, and
nurse you.’ His master, however, made answer that such a step was impossible,
since the tent was guarded by sentinels, who had orders to admit no one without
a pass. The breach of this rule was punishable with death. The man was silenced
for the moment, but at nightfall, regardless of the danger of disease or
detection, he crept on hands and knees past the sentinels, and slipping under
the cords of the doomed tent, he presented himself at his master’s bedside.
Here he went through many days of patient and tender nursing of the sick man,
till the plague claimed another victim, and the good surgeon died. Then the
servant walked quietly out of the tent door, and went through the usual form of
disinfection, after that returning to his regiment, where he was received with
open arms. To have dared so much for a beloved master raised him to the rank of
a hero, both among officers and men. He had shown that love for a fellow-man
was stronger even than the love of life in his breast, and those who might not
have been brave enough to dare such fearful risks, were noble enough to own
their admiration of one who had done so. Such faithful service is registered in
heaven,” the writer adds. (Great Thoughts.)
Love for a master
In the latter days of Sir Walter Scott, when poverty stared him in
the face, he had to announce to his servants his inability to retain them any
longer. But they begged to be allowed to stay, saying they would be content
with the barest fare if only they might remain in his employ. This was
permitted, and they clung, to him until the last. (H. O. Mackey.)
The ear bored with an aul
We are going to use this as a type, and get some moral out of it:
1. And the first use is this. Men are by nature the slaves of sin.
Some are the slaves of drunkenness, some of lasciviousness, some of
covetousness, some of sloth; but there are generally times in men’s lives when
they have an opportunity of breaking loose. There will happen providential
changes which take them away from old companions, and so give them a little
hope of liberty, or there will come times of sickness, which take them away
from temptation, and give them opportunities for thought. Above all, seasons
will occur when conscience is set to work by the faithful preaching of the
Word, and when the man pulls himself up, and questions his spirit thus:--“Which
shall it be? I have been a servant of the devil, but here is an opportunity of
getting free. Shall I give up this sin? Shall I pray God to give me grace to
break right away, and become a new man; or shall I not?”
2. Our text reads us a second lesson, namely, this. In the
forty-first Psalm, in the sixth verse, you will find the expression used by our
Lord, or by David in prophecy personifying our Lord, “Mine ear hast thou
opened,” or Mine ear hast thou digged.” Jesus Christ is here, in all
probability, speaking of Himself as being for ever, for our sakes, the willing
servant of God. Will you not say, “Let my ear be bored to His service, even as
His ear was digged for me”?
I. First, let us
speak upon our choice of perpetual service.
1. The first thing is, we have the power to go free if we will.
2. We have not the remotest wish to do so.
3. We are willing to take the consequences. The boring of our ear is
a special pain, but both ears are ready for the aul. The Lord’s service
involves peculiar trials, for He has told us, “Every branch that beareth fruit
He purgeth it.” Are we willing to take the purging?
II. Now, secondly,
our reasons for it. A man ought to have a reason for so weighty a decision as
this. What reasons can we give for such decided language?
1. We can give some reasons connected with Himself. The servant in
our text who would not accept his liberty, said, “I love my master.” Can we say
that? The servant in our text, who would not go free, plainly declared that he
loved his wife, so that there are reasons connected not only with his Master,
but with those in his Master’s house, which detain each servant of Jesus in
happy bondage. Some of us could not leave Jesus, not only because of what He
is, but because of some that are very dear to us who are in His service. How
could I leave my mother’s God? Besides, let me add, there are some of us who
must keep to Christ, because we have children in His family whom we could not
leave--dear ones who first learned of Christ from us.
2. There are reasons also why we cannot forsake our Lord which arise
out of ourselves; and the first is that reason which Peter felt to be so
powerful. The Master said, “Will ye also go away?” Peter answered by another
question. He said, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”
3. And why should we go? Can you find any reason why we should leave
Jesus Christ? Can you imagine one?
4. And when should we leave Him if we must leave Him? Leave Him while
we are young? It is then that we need Him to be the guide of our youth. Leave
Him when we are in middle life? Why, then it is we want Him to help us to bear
our cross, lest we sink under our daily load. Leave Him in old age? Ah, no! It
is then we require Him to cheer our declining hours. Leave Him in life? How could
we live without Him? Leave Him in death? How could we die without Him? No, we
must cling to Him; we must follow Him whithersoever He goeth.
III. In the last
place, I want to bore your ear. Do you mean to be bound for life? Christians,
do you really mean it? Come, sit ye down and count the cost.
1. And, first, let them be bored with the sharp awl of the Saviour’s
sufferings. No story wrings a Christian’s heart with such anguish as the griefs
and woes of Christ. The bleeding Lamb enthralls me. I am His, and His for ever.
That is one way of marking the ear.
2. Next, let your ear be fastened by the truth, so that you are
determined to hear only the gospel. The gospel ought to monopolize the
believer’s ear.
3. Furthermore, if you really give yourself to Christ, you must have
your ear opened to hear and obey the whispers of the Spirit of God, so that you
yield to His teaching, and to His teaching only. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Verses 7-11
If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant.
Degraded condition of girls in Africa
The condition of girls in Africa is thus described by a
missionary: “A father looks upon his girl as being of the value only of so many
goats, and he is ready to sell her as soon as any man offers him the required
payment. Thus, while she is quite young--perhaps only four or five--her life
and liberty may have been sold away by her own father, and sooner or later she
must become the wife, the slave, the drudge of her owner. While at Mayumba,
near the mouth of the Congo river, I one afternoon heard a child screaming
frantically behind the house where I was staying, and going out I found a
little Bavilla girl, not more than four years old, who had just been brought down
the lagoon from her home away in the Mamba hills, where she had been bought by
a Mayumba man. The crew of the canoe in which she had been brought down--six
big, fierce-looking men--were standing around the little prisoner, pointing
their guns and spears at her just for the sport of seeing her shake and scream
with fright; and a band of women were dancing with wild delight at the
heartless game. It was possible to save the poor child from the cruel treatment
just then, but that was only the beginning of a lifetime of suffering for her
in the midst of a strange people, with no friend at hand to help or protect
her.”
Verses 12-14
Shall be surely put to death.
Cases of homicide
I. Homicide in
effect. “He that hateth his brother is a murderer.” Anger in the heart gives
unconscious malicious power to the will. The man is responsible for the effects
of his anger, even though these effects are more disastrous than he intended.
II. Homicide by
mistake. Cities of refuge. And in the final adjustment of human affairs,
merciful consideration will be dealt out to those who have done vast mischief
by mistake; upon sins of ignorance will fall the blessed light of Divine mercy.
Embrace the glorious truth that through the sternest code the Divine love
cannot help revealing its gracious tendencies.
III. Homicide by
design. Death is to be his portion. Life is God’s most sacred gift. He bestows
largely for its unfolding. He provides many safeguards for its preservation. (W.
Burrows, B. A.)
Capital crimes in the Mosaic code
Complaint has been made against Moses on account of the number of
crimes made capital in his code. But great injustice has been done him in this
particular. The crimes punishable with death by his laws were either of a deep
moral malignity or such as were aimed against the very being of the state. It
will be found, too, on examination, that there were but four classes of capital
offences known to his laws--treason, murder, deliberate and gross abuse of
parents, and the more unnatural and horrid crimes arising out of the sexual
relation. And all the specifications under these classes amounted to only
seventeen; whereas it is not two hundred years since the criminal code of Great
Britain numbered one hundred and forty-eight crimes punishable with death--many
of them of a trivial nature, as petty thefts and trespasses upon property. But
no injury simply affecting property could draw down upon an Israelite an
ignominious death. The Mosaic law respected moral depravity more than gold.
Moral turpitudes, and the most atrocious expressions of moral turpitude, these
were the objects of its unsleeping severity. (E. C. Wines, D. D.)
Verse 15
He that smiteth his father.
God’s indignation against the unfilial spirit
I. The unfilial
spirit in two aspects.
1. He that smiteth his father or his mother.
2. “He that curseth (lit. revileth)
his father or his mother.”
II. The uniform
punishment of the unfilial spirit. “Shall surely be put to death.” The letter
of this condemnation is now repealed, but its spirit lives on through the ages.
1. An unfilial child dies to the respect of civilised society.
2. An unfilial child is morally dead. If the sign of the moral life
is “love of the brethren,” how dead must he be in whom filial respect and love
is extinct!
3. An unfilial child, inasmuch as he breaks a moral law, and a law
that partakes of the qualities of both tables and combines them, dies in a more
terrible sense. “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” (J. W. Burn.)
Filial impiety
The books tell us of an old man whose son dragged him, by his
hoary locks, to the threshold of his door, when the father said: “Now stop, my
son, that is as far as I dragged my father by his hair,” There is still a God
that judgeth in the earth. He makes Himself known by the judgments which He
executeth. Who has ever seen any one a loser by filial piety, or a gainer by
the want of it? There still lives a man who, in a passion, cursed his own
father, and then struck him several times with a horsewhip. Judgment against
this evil work was not executed speedily. Time rolled on, but no ingenuous
repentance followed. After some time the cruel son was blasting rock in a well.
The fuse caught fire, and he was blown up with the loss of both his eyes, and
his right hand, with which he had struck his father. Soon after this sad
occurrence he was received in the year 1868 as a pauper at the county
workhouse. He has habitually been restless and miserable. He is happy nowhere.
He has gone to another county and to another workhouse. But he is well known as
a very wretched man. By the law of Moses, cursing father or mother was punished
with death. No reason for the law is given, but the atrocious nature of the
act. What fearful force is in such words as these: “Whoso curseth his father or
his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness.” “The eye that
mocketh at his father, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the
young eagles shall eat it” (Proverbs 20:20; Proverbs 30:17). (W. S. Plumer.)
Cruelty to a mother
A young man, of whom I once heard, was often spoken to and
often prayed for by his mother, until he said to her, “Mother, if you don’t
give up that praying for me, I will run away to sea.” He ran away. Before he
went, his mother packed his box. She put the writing paper at the top, and all
she begged of him was, “My boy, when you are far away from me, write to me. I
will write to you; but send me an answer.” He went away; he stayed three years,
and never sent a single syllable to that loving mother, who oftentimes was
kneeling by her bedside praying for that runaway boy. At last he went back to
the old village to see how she was. As he walked down the street his heart
misgave him. He walked up the path to the house, he knocked at the door; it was
opened by a person whom he did not know. He asked for Mrs. So-and-so. “How is
she?” The woman looked blank at him. He said, “Is not she here?” “Oh,” said the
woman, “you mean the old woman who used to live here. She died eight months ago
of a broken heart. She had a bad son, who went away to sea and left her, and
she wrote to him, and he never wrote back again.” He turned away and went into
the village churchyard. He looked at the graves, he found the one he sought,
and threw himself down upon it, saying, “Oh, mother, I never meant it, I never
meant it! “ But he did it. (Dr. Morgan.)
Verse 16
He that stealeth a man.
About kidnapping
The same law is repeated in Deuteronomy 24:7; from which passage it
is evident that it treats of kidnapping a Hebrew. And thus the severity
of the punishment, death, without the possibility of redemption, cannot appear
surprising. For all Israelites are considered as free citizens with inalienable
and equal rights, of which they can never be entirely divested. Now it is
natural that he who steals an Israelite will, in the rarest cases, keep him as
his slave or sell him to an Israelite, as the injured person could, in the Holy
Land, easily find means to inform the authorities of his fate, and thus cause
the punishment of his criminal master. The latter, therefore, generally sold
the kidnapped individual to foreign merchants into distant lands, either to
Egyptians, who commanded the land commerce to the south, or to Phoenicians, who
influenced the trade to the west; and opportunities of selling must have easily
offered themselves, as Palestine was situated in the exact centre of the
commerce of the East. But by such sale, free Israelites became permanent slaves;
they forfeited with their liberty their chief characteristic as Hebrews, and
were thus lost to the Hebrew community, the more so, as the exclusive
intercourse with pagans must necessarily defile the purity of their faith, and
gradually accustom their thoughts to idolatry. For this reason it was in the
Mosaic law, interdicted to sell even thieves into foreign countries, because
thereby souls are, as it were, extirpated from Israel. Thus he who
kidnapped Israelites and sold them to other countries justly deserved death,
especially if we consider the most melancholy and bitter lot to which the
slaves of heathen nations were generally doomed. (M. M. Kalisch, P h. D.)
Unrighteousness of slave holding
At the time slaves were held in the State of New York, one of
them, escaping into Vermont, was captured and taken before the court at
Middlebury by his owner, who asked the court to give him possession of his
slave property. Judge Harrington listened attentively to the proofs of
ownership, but said that he was not convinced that the title was perfect. Then
the counsel asked what more was required. “Until you bring me a bill of sale
from God Almighty you cannot have this man.” (J. Swinton.)
Verse 18-19
If men strive together.
Lessons
1. Passions and contentions breed many sad events among neighbours.
2. Smitings, and wounds, and sickness, and death are usual effects of
sudden passions.
3. In case it proceed not to death, God will not suffer injuries
unpunished by men.
4. Not only the death, but the hurts of men, are in God’s heart to
prevent (Exodus 21:18).
5. It is just with God that he who wounds must look to thorough
healing of his neighbour.
6. Man’s loss of time, as well as health, God will have recompensed
by the injurious.
7. Security and prosperity of creatures is the end cf God’s judgments
against violent men (Exodus 21:18-19). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Human strife
Are our little personal strifes noted in heaven? Yes, every
one of them. But can men strive together? Properly looked at that would
seem to be the harder question of the two. Coming suddenly upon a line of this
kind we should exclaim in surprise, “The assumption is impossible. We must
begin our criticism of a statement of this kind by rejecting its probability,
and, that being done, there is no case left. How can men strive together? Men
are brothers, men are rational creatures, men recognize one another’s rights,
and interests, and welfare; society is not a competition, but a fraternal and
sacred emulation; therefore, the assumption that men can strive together is a
false one, and, the foundation being false, the whole edifice totters down.”
That would-be fine theory, that would be sweet poetry, it might almost be
thrown into rhyme, but there are the facts staring us in the face. What are
those facts? That all life is a strife, that every man in some way or degree,
or at some time, begrudges the room which every other man takes up. The tragedy
of Cain and Abel has never ceased, and can never cease until we become children
of the Second Adam. Great degrees of modification may, of course, take effect.
The vulgarity of smiting may be left to those who are in a low state of
life--who are, in fact, in barbarous conditions; but they who smite with the
fist are not the cruellest of men. There is a refined smiting--a daily, bitter,
malignant opposition; there is a process of mutual undermining, or outreaching,
or outrunning, in the very spirit of which is found the purpose of murder. But
mark how beneficence enters into the arrangement here laid down. Not only is
the man who smote his brother to pay for the loss of his brother’s time; that
would be a mere cash transaction. There are men ready enough to buy themselves
out of any obligation; a handful of gold is nothing. Their language is, “Take
it, and let us be free.” That would be poor legislation in some cases, though
heavy enough in others. To some men money has no meaning; they have outlived
all its influences; they are so rich that they can bribe and pay, and secure
silence or liberty by a mere outputting of the hand. But the beneficence is in
the next clause, “and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.” The man must be
made as good as he was before, therefore he must be inquired about; he must be
taken an interest in; he must become a quantity in the life of the man who
injured him, and, however impartial the man who inflicted the injury may become
under such chafing, the impatience itself may be turned to good account. Some
men can only be taught philanthropy by such rough and urgent schoolmasters. (J.
Parker, D. D.)
Verse 20-21
If a man smite his servant.
Masters and servants
1. It is supposed that masters in the Church of God may be cruel in
correcting servants, but it is sin.
2. It is possible that death may follow upon such cruel smiting.
3. In such case the life of the vilest slaves is precious with God,
and He requireth it with death (Exodus 21:20).
4. Correction due unto servants which endangers not life, is supposed
lawful.
5. No governor is guilty by God’s law upon such due chastening.
6. Servants are the due purchase of their lords for their labours not
for their lives.
7. The lives and comforts of poorest slaves are dear to God and
secured by Him (Exodus 21:21). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Verses 22-25
Life for life.
The criminal law: was it written in blood
The only sense in which retaliation was authorized was as a
maxim of law, which helped to fix the measure of punishment for crime. It was
the mode of punishment which was at once the simplest, the most natural, and
the most easily administered. Indeed, in many cases it was the only mode
possible. How would our modern reformers punish such offences? By putting the
malefactor in prison? But where was the prison in the desert? In the desert the
only possible penalty was one which could be inflicted on the person of the
offender, and here the principle of strict retaliation for the crime committed,
rigid as it may seem, was perfectly just. It was right that he who inflicted a
wound upon his neighbour should feel himself how sharp and keen a wound may be;
that he who ferociously tore his brother’s eye from its socket should forfeit
his own. The law against murder followed the same inexorable rule--“life for
life”; a law in which there was no element of pardon or pity. But Moses did not
create it; it had been the law of the desert long before he was born. When that
old bearded sheik of all the Bedaween of Sinai, sitting under the shadow of a
great rock in the desert, explained to us the operation of the lex talionis in
his tribe, he set before us not only that which now is, but that which has been
from the very beginning of time. It was somewhat startling, indeed, to find
that laws and customs which we had supposed to belong only to an extreme
antiquity still lingered among these mountains and deserts. The avenger of
blood might follow with swift foot upon the murderer’s track, and if he
overtook him and put him to death the law held him free. But at the same time
it gave the criminal a chance for his life. In the cities of refuge the
manslayer was safe until he could have a fair trial . . . Perhaps nothing shows
more the spirit of a law than the modes of execution for those who are to
suffer its extreme penalty. It is not two hundred years since torture was laid
aside by European nations. James the Second himself witnessed the wrenching of
“the boot” as a favourite diversion. The assassin who struck Henry the Fourth
was torn limb from limb by horses, under the eye of ladies of the court. The
Inquisition stretched its victims on the rack. Other modes of execution, such
as burning alive, sawing asunder, and breaking on the wheel, were common in
Europe until a late period. The Turks impaled men, or flayed them alive; and
tied women in sacks with serpents, and threw them into the Bosphorus. Among the
ancients, punishments were still more excruciating. The Roman people, so famous
for the justice of their laws, inflicted the supreme agony of crucifixion, in
which the victim lingered dying for hours, or even days. After the capture of
Jerusalem, Titus ordered two thousand Jews to be crucified. How does this act
of the imperial Romans compare with the criminal law of “a semi-savage race”?
Under the Hebrew code all these atrocities were unknown. Moses prescribed but
two modes of capital punishment--the sword and stoning . . . And is this the
law that was “written in blood “? No, not in blood, but in tears; for
through the sternness of the lawgiver is continually breaking the heart of man.
Behind the coat of mail that covers the breast of the warrior is sometimes
found the heart of a woman. This union of gentleness with strength is one of
the most infallible signs of a truly great nature. It is this mingling
of the tender and the terrible that gives to the Hebrew law a character so
unique--a majesty that awes with a gentleness that savours more of parental
affection than of severity. Crime and its punishment is not in itself a pleasing
subject to dwell on; but when on this dark background is thrown the light of
such provisions for the poor and the weak, the effect is like the glow of
sunset on the red granite of the Sinai mountains. Even the peaks that were hard
and cold, look warm in the flood of sunlight which is poured over them all.
Thus uniting the character of the supporter of weakness and protector of
innocence with that of the punisher of crime, Moses appears almost as the
divinity of his nation--as not only the founder of the Hebrew state, but as its
guardian genius through all the periods of its history. When he went up into
Mount Nebo, and stretched out his arm toward the Promised Land, he gave to that
land the inestimable blessings of laws founded in eternal justice; and not only
in justice, but in which humanity was embodied almost as much as in the
precepts of religion. Nor was that law given for the Israelites alone. It was
an inheritance for all ages and generations. That mighty arm was to protect the
oppressed so long as human governments endure. Moses was the king of
legislators, and to the code which he left rulers of all times have turned for
instruction. (H. M. Field, D. D.)
Lessons
1. God supposeth the cruel smitings of masters, but alloweth them
not.
2. God foreseeth the sufferings of poor slaves, and provides in His
law against it.
3. The perishing of the least member of servants, even of a tooth,
God will require of superiors (verse 26).
4. God by His law depriveth those men of lordship, who abuse their
power cruelly over servants.
5. Bond and free are equally considered by God in His law without
respect of persons. He makes the oppressed free (verses 26, 27). (G. Hughes,
B. D.)
Stripe for stripe
A boy was one day sitting on the steps of a door. He had a
broom in one hand, and in the other a large piece of bread-and-butter, which
somebody had kindly given him. While he was eating it, and merrily humming a
tune, he saw a poor little dog quietly sleeping not far from him. He called out
to him: “Come here, poor fellow!” The dog, hearing himself kindly spoken to,
rose, pricked up his ears, and wagged his tail. Seeing the boy eating, he came
near him. The boy held out to him a piece of his bread-and-butter. As the dog
stretched out his head to take it, the boy hastily drew back his hand, and hit
him a hard rap on the nose. The poor dog ran away, howling most dreadfully,
while the cruel boy sat laughing at the mischief he had done. A gentleman who
was looking from a window on the other side of the street, saw what the wicked boy
had done. Opening the street door, he called to him to cross over, at the same
time holding up a sixpence between his finger and thumb. “Would you like this?”
said the gentleman. “Yes, if you please, sir,” said the boy, smiling; and he
hastily ran over to seize the money. Just at the moment that he stretched out
his hand, he got so severe a rap on the knuckles from a cane which the
gentleman had behind him, that he roared out like a bull. “What did you do that
for?” said he, making a very long face, and rubbing his hand. “I didn’t hurt
you, nor ask you for the sixpence.” “What did you hurt that poor dog for just
now?” said the gentleman. “He didn’t hurt you, nor ask you for your
bread-and-butter. As you served him, I have served you. Now, remember dogs can
feel as well as boys, and learn to behave kindly towards dumb animals in
future.” (Great Thoughts.)
Life for life
Herbert was yet of tender age when his father, the huntsman of
Farmstein, was, in the heart of the forest, shot down by an unknown poacher. His
mother brought up her fatherless boy as well as she could, and at the age of
twenty, when he has become a skilful forester, he obtained his father’s
situation. It happened that one day, when Herbert was hunting in the forest
with many hunters, he shot at a large stag, and missed it. Presently a voice
exclaimed piteously in the copse, “Oh, heaven! I am shot.” Herbert moved
forward, and found an old man who was uttering loud groans, as he lay covered
with blood. The whole company of hunters gathered around the dying man.
Herbert, however, knelt down beside him and begged his forgiveness, protesting
that he had not seen him. The dying man, however, said, “I have nothing to
forgive you, for that which has hitherto been concealed from all the world
shall now come to light. I am the poacher who shot your father just here, under
this old oak. The very ground where we now are was dyed with his blood; and it
has evidently been destined that you, the son of the murdered man, should on
this precise spot, without any thought or intention of such a thing, avenge the
act on me. God is just!” he exclaimed, and presently expired.
Equitable Judgment
“A Teuton made a little fortune here not long ago in the milk
business, and decided to return to Germany and enjoy it in his old home. In the
ship that was bearing him homeward was a mischievous monkey. The monkey, prying
around one day, found a heavy bag and ran up to the masthead with it. The
German clasped his hands in despair at seeing the bag; it was his money, all in
gold. The monkey in a leisurely way pulled out a piece and flung it down to the
deck, when the ex-milkman gathered it up. Then the beast tossed a second piece
into the sea. Thus alternately the pieces went, one into the ocean and the next
into the distracted man’s pocket. ‘Ah,’ said the ex-milkman, as he pocketed
just half of what he had started with, ‘it is just. One-half of that milk I
have sold was milk, and the money for it comes back; the other half was water,
and half goes back to water.’”
If an ox gore.
God’s regard for the safety of man and beast
I. God cares for
the safety of man.
1. If an ox injured a man for the first time, the life of the ox only
was forfeited (Exodus 21:28). But--
2. If the owner of the ox, acquainted with the proved vicious
character of his beast, neglected to put him under restraint, and the ox killed
his victim--as culpably negligent,--
II. God cares for
the safety of the beast. Other Scriptures demonstrate this (Matthew 6:26, etc.).
III. Provision for
the safety of others should be made.
1. This provision should be made promptly.
2. This provision should be permanent.
Application:
1. Beware of injuring your neighbour’s soul by an unguarded
inconsistency.
2. Beware of injuring your neighbour’s friendship by any unguarded
passion.
3. Beware of injuring your neighbour’s character by any unguarded
word.
4. Beware of injuring your neighbour’s peace by any unguarded look or
action.
5. In all matters concerning your neighbour, remember that
“Whatsoever ye would,” etc. (J. W. Burn.)
The penalties of carelessness
I. Life is
superior to property. The ox that had gored a man to death was to be killed,
and put out of the way. The ox is stoned to death; and, legally, it would
involve physical uncleanness to eat of the flesh.
II. The careless
man is culpable. If the animal had been known to gore; if this fact had been
testified to the owner, and proper precautions had not been taken, then the
owner was in some measure participant in the evil doings of the vicious
creature. Carelessness is culpable. He that knoweth to do good, and doeth it
not, to him it is sin. To prevent evil by wise precaution is our bounden duty,
and is an indirect method of doing good. All life is precious; but it seems to
be indicated that some lives are more precious than others. Thirty shekels is a
high price for some; but a hundred shekels would be a low price for others.
After death has visited, then estimates nearer the truth of a man’s worth will
be formed.
III. Man is
responsible for preventable evil. If into the uncovered pit an ox or an ass
fall, the owner of the pit shall make good the damage. Will the Almighty hold
us responsible for the moral pits we have left uncovered? We have not placed
precautionary signals in sufficient number along those highways where moral
pits and quagmires abound. (W. Burrows, B. A.)
Punishment of criminal carelessness
If Moses had to regulate our legislation in reference to railway
accidents, he would put it on altogether a new basis. If half-a-dozen people
were killed and a score seriously injured through the mail running into a goods
train, and Moses found that the engine driver who missed the signal had been on
his engine twelve or fourteen hours, or that the pointsman who turned the mail
into the goods siding had been kept at his post for, perhaps, a still longer
period, I cannot help thinking that managers and directors would stand a chance
of having a much, sharper punishment than they commonly receive now. And if
criminal carelessness which might be fatal to life was punished by Moses with death,
I think that fraudulent acts which are certain to injure the health and perhaps
the life of the community, would have been punished by him not less severely.
He would certainly have approved the sentence under which a few months ago a
large farmer, greatly to his own astonishment and the astonishment of his
friends, was put in prison for sending diseased meat to market; only I think
that the old Jewish legislator would have inflicted a still heavier
punishment--a few years’ penal servitude instead of a month or two’s
imprisonment. Chemists, who adulterate the drugs on which the rescue of life
depends--the rescue of the life not only of ordinary members of the community
like ourselves, whom also Moses would have protected, but of men of science,
poets, and statesmen, whose death would be a calamity to the nation, and to the
world--would I think, have been made responsible by him for the death of those
who perished through their fault; and if they were not stoned or hung for
murder, which I think would have been possible, a criminal penalty so heavy
would have been inflicted on them, and they would have been branded with such
imfamy, that other evil-disposed persons would have feared to repeat the crime.
(R. W. Dale, D. D.)
Responsibility respecting life
We have this principle certainly in our law, but with what
beneficial effect a much wider application of it might be made! Look at a few
instances of carelessness. There is a block of crowded, unventilated, and
badly-drained houses, into which necessity drives the poor to herd, and where
they sicken and die. Think you this principle would not lay hands on the owner
of such property? Would it spare a corporation if it neglected to deal with a
pestilence breeding quarter? Neither would trifling carelessness escape. What
is trifling? A traveller goes to a strange hotel, and retires to damp sheets,
and ever afterwards suffers from ill-health, sometimes speedily loses life.
Think of the thousands who travel, and follow even one stricken one into a
sorrowful and bereaved family! Carelessness, when seen in its consummation,
speaks for itself. But worse than carelessness is selfishness which pursues its
ends regardless of others. In the sloppy winter of the Franco-German war, an
army contractor furnished boots with paper soles to the French. In the Crimean
war we heard of manufacturers who supplied blankets which, so to speak, rotted
on the backs of our soldiers. How much death and disaster was due to this
selfishness! Because we cannot count the victims is there no guilt? Moses would
say, if life be lost and can be traced to a man, let him atone for it; results
must be dealt with. Life is the one sacred thing. Nor is it difficult to see
that such a principle applies itself to the selfishness of those who by their
trickery and roguery in business ruin the commerce of their country. Alas! for
the advice because it is utopian, and more because it is needed, but it is true
that no tribunal would better serve England at this juncture than one which
held the terror of moral justice over manufacturers who send out worthless
goods and taint our honest name, and impair our credit the wide world over.
They rob others, and they destroy their country. There are traitors to-day as
real as those who in olden days took a bribe and sold their armies or their
castles to the enemy. (W. Senior, B. A.)
A needful warning
On a cold Sabbath morning in February, a gentleman was walking
along, somewhat hastily, through the snow. He noticed a bright-looking little
lad standing upon the pavement, with his cap in his hand and his eyes fixed
upon one spot on the sidewalk. As he approached him he looked up to him, and
pointing to the place, said, “Please don’t step there, sir. I slipped there and
fell down.” What a different world this would be if all Christians were as
particular as this lad to warn others against dangers, whether temporal or
spiritual. (Christian Herald.)
A danger signal
At Saltcoats, not very far from the shore, stands a beacon
in the winter. If you were to ask any one who belongs to that place, why it is
there, you would be told this story:--“A merchant from Glasgow, with his
family, was residing there for the summer months. One morning the merchant went
out to bathe before breakfast, and he thought he was quite safe as long as he kept
near the shore. But there was a pit there which he did not know anything of,
and into this pit he fell, and nothing more was seen or heard of him. After
this accident a beacon was put up as a warning to all others to keep from the
spot.” What were the feelings that prompted this beacon to be put up? It must
have been feelings of love to keep all others from danger. (Christian
Herald.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》