Exodus · Chapter 21

V. 1. 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 1. Now these are the judgments] There is so much good sense, feeling, humanity, equity, and justice in the following laws, that they cannot but be admired by every intelligent reader; and they are so very plain as to require very little comment. The laws in this chapter are termed political, those in the succeeding chapter judicial, laws; and are supposed to have been delivered to Moses alone, in consequence of the request of the people, Exodus 20:19, that God should communicate his will to Moses, and that Moses should, as mediator, convey it to them.

Verse 1. 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 inquired 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 toward them. The Israelites had lately been servants themselves, and now they were become not only their own masters, 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 1. These are the judgments. In this chapter we enter upon the fifty seven precepts of the civil law of the Hebrew nation. They are the laws of patriarchal society; and are here arranged and modified so as to promote order, purity and justice, in the whole community. The American Indians are found to have had many of these laws, as will be cited under the particular precept. Theodore Beza has left us a Latin work entitled Mosaycarum & Romanorum Legum Collatio, the Mosaic code collated with the Roman laws, in which many of the statutes are striking coincidents.

1. The judgments which thou shalt set before them — As distinguished from the words spoken directly from heaven. Judgments are here to be understood as decisions of law, or judicial statutes and regulations to govern in the administration of justice. These were the rules of judgment by which the rights of individuals were to be maintained and civil order secured.

V. 2. 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 2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant] Calmet enumerates six different ways in which a Hebrew might lose his liberty: 1. In extreme poverty they might sell their liberty. Leviticus 25:39: If thy brother be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, &c. 2. A father might sell his children. If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant; see Exodus 21:7. 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 bondmen, 2 Kings 4:1. 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; Exodus 22:3,4. 5. A Hebrew was liable to be taken prisoner in 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.

Six years he shall serve] It was an excellent provision in these laws, that no man could finally injure himself by any rash, foolish, or precipitate act. No man could make himself a servant or slave for more than seven years; and if he mortgaged the family inheritance, it must return to the family at the jubilee, which returned every fiftieth year.

It is supposed that the term six years is to be understood as referring to the sabbatical years; for let a man come into servitude at whatever part of the interim between two sabbatical years, he could not be detained in bondage beyond a sabbatical year; so that if he fell into bondage the third year after a sabbatical year, he had but three years to serve; if the fifth, but one. See Clarke note on “Exodus 23:11”, &c. Others suppose that this privilege belonged only to the year of jubilee, beyond which no man could be detained in bondage, though he had been sold only one year before.

Verse 2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant — Either sold by himself 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. See the texts referred to in the margin.

Ver. 2. Buy a Hebrew servant. In criminal cases, and in cases of debt, the magistrates had of course the power to inflict this punishment. It was allowed also in cases of insolvency. 1 Kings 4:1. Matthew 18:25. And seven years servitude was milder than long imprisonment.

2. Buy a Hebrew servant — In the time of Moses slavery existed among all the nations, and commonly in most oppressive forms. The Israelites themselves had just escaped a bondage of serfdom in Egypt. The Hebrew patriarchs had owned many slaves who inter-married and begat children, and these were regarded as the property of the patriarchal chieftain. Comp. Genesis 14:14. The Mosaic legislation was adapted to mitigate the evils of the system, and provided for universal emancipation. Leviticus 25:10. This verse shows that a Hebrew might be bought and sold, but under definite restrictions. It appears, (1.) That a Hebrew might sell himself, voluntarily, for a term of years not exceeding six, (except in the case specified in verse 6.) (2.) He might, on account of poverty, feel obliged to sell himself (Leviticus 25:39) even to a foreigner. Leviticus 25:47. (3.) One might sell his daughter to be a maidservant, (verse 7,) or one might be sold for theft, (Exodus 22:3.) (4.) Captives taken in war might become the possession of the conquerors, (Deuteronomy 20:14; 21:10-14; Numbers 31:1, 8,) and, (5.) Hebrews might purchase bond-servants of the heathen, and treat them with greater rigour than was allowable with any of their own brethren. Leviticus 25:44-46. But stealing and selling men were punishable with death, (verse 16,) and the rendition of fugitive slaves was strictly forbidden. Deuteronomy 23:15, 16. The Mosaic law does not authorize the involuntary sale of any one except for crime. In the seventh he shall go out free — Furnished also with liberal gifts. Compare Deuteronomy 15:13, 14. This humane provision made it impossible for any Hebrew to become involved in unwilling bondage. Such a provision adopted by any slaveholding people would speedily abolish all holding of human beings in unjust bondage.

Verse 3. If he came in by himself] If he and his wife came in together, they were to go out together: in all respects as he entered, so should he go out. This consideration seems to have induced St. Jerome to translate the passage thus: Cum quali veste intraverat, cum tali exeat. “He shall have the same coat in going out, as he had when he came in,” i.e., if he came in with a new one, he shall go out with a new one, which was perfectly just, as the former coat must have been worn out in his master’s service, and not his own.

Verse 3. If he came in by himself — That is, single, he shall so depart: if married, his wife was to depart with him.

Verse 4. The wife and her children shall be her master’s] It was a law among the Hebrews, that if a Hebrew had children by a Canannitish woman, those children must be considered as Canaanitish only, and might be sold and bought, and serve for ever. The law here refers to such a case only.

Verse 4. Her children shall be her master’s — Having become his in consequence of the right which he had to the parents. He shall go out by himself — But was not this separation of man and wife inconsistent with the first institution of marriage, by which that bond is made indissoluble? Answer, 1st, That bond was not necessarily dissolved by this law, both because the separation was at the man’s choice, who might have stayed if he pleased, and because the distinction of their habitations might consist with the right use of matrimony, which the master would probably permit for his own advantage.

Ver. 4. The wife—her master’s. The Jews affirm that this law respected aliens only.

4. If his master have given him a wife — This condition involved certain rights of family and household possession. It contemplates the patriarchal family, in which servants were born, and may also have had in view the fact that the wife in the case supposed might often be a bondmaid acquired from among the heathen, whose legal term of service would not expire before the jubilee. “This may appear oppressive, but it was an equitable consequence of the possession of property in slaves at all.” — Keil.

V. 6. For ever-As long as he lives, or till the year of Jubilee.

Verse 6. Shall bring him unto the judges] האלהים la el haelohim, literally, to God; or, as the Septuagint have it, prov to krithrion qeou, to the judgment of God; who condescended to dwell among his people; who determined all their differences till he had given them laws for all cases, and who, by his omniscience, brought to light the hidden things of dishonesty. See Exodus 22:8.

Bore his ear through with an awl] This was a ceremony sufficiently significant, as it implied, 1. That he was closely attached to that house and family. 2. That he was bound to hear all his master’s orders, and to obey them punctually. Boring of the ear was an ancient custom in the east. It is referred to by Juvenal:—

Prior, inquit, ego adsum.

Cur timeam, dubitemve locum defendere? quamvis

Natus ad Euphraten, MOLLES quod in AURE FENESTRÆ

Arguerint, licet ipse negem.

Sat. i. 102.

“First come, first served, he cries; and I, in spite

Of your great lordships, will maintain my right:

Though born a slave, though my torn EARS are BORED,

‘Tis not the birth, ‘tis money makes the lord.”

DRYDEN.

Calmet quotes a saying from Petronius as attesting the same thing; and one from Cicero, in which he rallies a Libyan who pretended he did not hear him: “It is not,” said he, “because your ears are not sufficiently bored;” alluding to his having been a slave.

Verse 6. His master shall bring him to the judges — In the original, gods, magistrates being often so called as the visible representatives of God upon earth. In the Septuagint it is prov to krithrion qeou, to the tribunal of God, meaning probably the sanctuary. The sense seems evidently to be, that the master was to bring his slave to the temporal judges, that they might take cognizance of the case, and that the agreement, being publicly and solemnly confirmed, might be irrevocable. He shall bring him to the door — To wit, of his master’s house, as is expressed Deuteronomy 15:17, in token that he was fixed there, and must no more go out free. Shall bore his ear through with an awl — We find from Juvenal and Petronius that this continued to be a custom in Syria and Arabia many ages after this. And it fitly represented the servant’s perpetual obligation to abide in that house, and there to hear and obey his master’s commands, Psalm 40:6. For ever — As long as he lives, or till the year of jubilee.

Ver. 6. Bore his ear: a frequent custom among the gentiles as well as the Jews.

6. Unto the judges — Hebrews, unto the gods: here meaning the local magistrates. Comp. Psalm 82:6; John 10:34. His master shall bore his ear — On this Michaelis has the following observations: “In order to guard against all abuse, it was necessary that the transaction should be gone about judicially, and that the magistrate should know it. It was the intention of Moses that every Hebrew who wished to continue a servant for life should, with the magistrate’s previous knowledge, bear a given token thereof in his own body. He thus guarded against the risk of a master having it in his power either to pretend that his servant had promised to serve him during his life, when he had not, or, by ill usage, during the period that he had him in his service, to extort any such promise from him. The statute of Moses made the boring of the ears in some degree ignominious to a freeman; because it became the sign whereby a perpetual slave was to be known. And if the Israelites had, for this reason, abandoned the practice, Moses would not have been displeased. Indeed, this was probably the very object which he had in view to get imperceptibly effected by this law: for in the wearing of earrings superstition was deeply concerned.” — Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. ii, p. 178. London, 1814.

Verse 7. If a man sell his daughter] This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress-when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.

Verse 7. If a man sell his daughter — A Hebrew, as appears by the opposition of one of a strange nation, verse 8. To be a maid-servant — Which was allowed in cases of extreme necessity; she shall not go out as the men-servants do — Gaining her liberty after a servitude of six years, but upon better terms, as being one of the weaker and more helpless sex.

Ver. 7. If a man sell his daughter, not for doula, a slave, but oiketiv, for a domestic, and under a promise of marriage. In all Shem’s race, as in the tribes of Ham and Japhet, a man had the power of a husband over a maid that he had bought. “From the beginning,” as our Saviour says on cases of divorce, “it was not so.” Moses therefore mitigates what he could not supersede, by guarding the spotless honour of a poor virgin.

7. Sell his daughter — This might occur because of extreme poverty and want. Nehemiah 5:5. The verses following show that this kind of a sale was contemplated as essentially a betrothal; but they also serve to exhibit the inferior position in which women were held as compared with men. They might be sold by their parents for maidservants, and so take the place of concubines in the family of the purchaser. But this statute was attended by the following provisions: (1.) A maidservant, thus acquired, was not to obtain her freedom in the seventh year, like the men-servants of verse 2.

(2.) She could not be sold into a strange nation. (3.) She might be redeemed, either by her father, were he able, or by another Hebrew who desired her for a concubine. (4.) Her master might betroth her to his son, and in that case she was to be treated by him as a daughter. (5.) Her rights as a concubine were not to be changed by his taking another woman into the same relation. (6.) If her rights were withheld she was entitled to freedom. On the whole these laws, though far below the standard of Christian ethics, were mild and tolerant for the time.

V. 8. Who hath betrothed her to himself-For a concubine, or secondary Wife. Not that Masters always took Maid-servants on these terms.

Verse 8. Who hath betrothed her to himself — For a concubine, or secondary wife. Not that masters always took maid-servants on those terms. Then shall he let her be redeemed — Either by herself or her friends, or any other person that will redeem her. To sell her to a strange nation he shall have no power — This was prohibited, because a heathen would keep her for a perpetual servant, which the Israelites might not do. Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her — In breaking his promise of marriage made to her, or in disappointing the hopes he had encouraged her to entertain of it.

8. Please not her master — Hebrews, if she be evil in the eyes of her master. If he discover some defect in her, or find her less attractive and useful to him than he had expected. Dealt deceitfully with her — The purchase implied the pledge of marriage or concubinage, with its legal rights. These involved obligations which, if not met, exposed to the charge of deceitful dealing.

V. 9. After the manner of daughters-He shall give her a portion, as to a daughter.

Verse 9. Betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her] He shall give her the same dowry he would give to one of his own daughters. From these laws we learn, that if a man’s son married his servant, by his father’s consent, the father was obliged to treat her in every respect as a daughter; and if the son married another woman, as it appears he might do, Exodus 21:10, he was obliged to make no abatement in the privileges of the first wife, either in her food, raiment, or duty of marriage. The word htn[ onathah, here, is the same with St. Paul’s ofeilomenhn eunoian, the marriage debt, and with the omilian of the Septuagint, which signifies the cohabitation of man and wife.

Verses 9, 10. After the manner of daughters — He shall give her a convenient portion, as he doth to his own daughters. Duty of marriage — Termed due benevolence, 1 Corinthians 7:3: or, her dwelling, as the word is often used. Thus the three great conveniences of life are included, food, raiment, and habitation, all which he is to provide for her.

Verses 9, 10. After the manner of daughters — He shall give her a convenient portion, as he doth to his own daughters. Duty of marriage — Termed due benevolence, 1 Corinthians 7:3: or, her dwelling, as the word is often used. Thus the three great conveniences of life are included, food, raiment, and habitation, all which he is to provide for her.

10. Her duty of marriage — hnw[, cohabitation and associated conjugal rights.

Verse 11. These three] 1. Her food, hrav sheerah, her flesh, for she must not, like a common slave, be fed merely on vegetables. 2. Her raiment-her private wardrobe, with all occasional necessary additions. And, 3. The marriage debt-a due proportion of the husband’s time and company.

11. These three — Most simply, the three things mentioned in the previous verse; namely, food, raiment, and cohabitation. Others understand the three things to be, (1) letting her be redeemed, (2) betrothing her to his son, (3) allowing her the rights of marriage named in verse 10.

Verses 12, 13. He that smiteth a man — Knowingly and wilfully, as appears from the next verse; shall be surely put to death — Neither the friends of the person slain nor the magistrate shall give him a pardon, or accept a ransom for him, Numbers 35:31. If God deliver him into his hand — As the Scriptures teach us to acknowledge God in every thing that falls out, so when a man is killed by what we call accident, without any intention of the agent, he is said to have been delivered into his hand by God, without whose divine foresight and permission the event could not have happened. I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee — It is probable, that while the Israelites were in the wilderness the place of refuge was the camp of the Levites or the altar. Afterward, it is well known, certain cities were appointed for that purpose.

12. Smiteth a man, so that he die — This is a general law for intentional murder, and demands the punishment declared in Genesis 9:6. See also notes on Exodus 20:13.

Verse 13. I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.] From the earliest times the nearest akin had a right to revenge the murder of his relation, and as this right was universally acknowledged, no law was ever made on the subject; but as this might be abused, and a person who had killed another accidentally, having had no previous malice against him, might be put to death by the avenger of blood, as the nearest kinsman was termed, therefore God provided the cities of refuge to which the accidental manslayer might flee till the affair was inquired into, and settled by the civil magistrate.

Verses 12, 13. He that smiteth a man — Knowingly and wilfully, as appears from the next verse; shall be surely put to death — Neither the friends of the person slain nor the magistrate shall give him a pardon, or accept a ransom for him, Numbers 35:31. If God deliver him into his hand — As the Scriptures teach us to acknowledge God in every thing that falls out, so when a man is killed by what we call accident, without any intention of the agent, he is said to have been delivered into his hand by God, without whose divine foresight and permission the event could not have happened. I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee — It is probable, that while the Israelites were in the wilderness the place of refuge was the camp of the Levites or the altar. Afterward, it is well known, certain cities were appointed for that purpose.

Ver. 13. God delivered him into his hand. That is, he proved the stronger in the fight, and his opponent died of his bruises. But neither refuge nor satisfaction was allowed for wilful murder. Numbers 35:31.

13. Lie not in wait — That is, intending to take life, and planning, like a hunter, to insure the death of his victim. But God deliver him into his hand — As when one is slain by the accidental blow not intended for him, as in the case supposed in Deuteronomy 19:5. Such unintentional homicide could not justly be treated as the crime of murder. A place whither he shall flee — Such “cities of refuge” were afterward appointed. See Numbers 35:9-15, and parallels.

Verse 14. Thou shalt take him from mine altar] Before the cities of refuge were assigned, the altar of God was the common asylum.

Verse 14. If a man come presumptuously — Do this boldly, purposely, and maliciously; for so the word signifies, thou shalt take him from mine altar. God so abhors murder that he will rather venture the pollution of his own altar than the escape of the murderer.

14. Take him from mine altar — The cases of Adonijah and Joab, as read in 1 Kings 1:50, and 2:28, are illustrations of the prevalent notion that the altar was a place of security from violence. This law aims to take away from the presumptuous murderer all hope of protection from the holy place.

Verse 15. That smiteth his father, or his mother] As such a case argued peculiar depravity, therefore no mercy was to be shown to the culprit.

Verse 15. He that smiteth his father, &c. — So sacred and inviolable is that reverence which children owe to their parents, that, by the law of God, it was death not only to strike them, but even to curse or outrageously revile them, verse 17, and Matthew 15:4. The reason of this law is, that such crimes are a sign of most audacious wickedness. It appears, however, from Deuteronomy 21:18, that children were not to be put to death for the first offence of this kind, but if, after repeated admonitions from their parents, they still persisted in their undutiful carriage, without hope of reformation, then, upon the accusation of their parents, they were to be put to death.

Verse 16. He that stealeth a man] By this law every man-stealer, and every receiver of the stolen person, should lose his life; no matter whether the latter stole the man himself, or gave money to a slave captain or negro-dealer to steal him for him.

Verse 16. He that stealeth a man — Whether he keep him in his own hands for his own use, or sell him, still it is a theft of a heinous kind, and the man-stealer deserves death. It appears from 1 Timothy 1:9, 10, that this law was not meant to be of a merely temporary nature, but of standing force.

16, 17. Stealeth a man — Note that manstealing was placed on the same plane with the crime of murder. Cursing a parent was also treated as a capital offence.

16, 17. Stealeth a man — Note that manstealing was placed on the same plane with the crime of murder. Cursing a parent was also treated as a capital offence.

Verses 18, 19. With a stone — Or any other instrument fit for such a mischievous purpose. The loss of his time — Of the profit which he commonly made of his time in the way of his calling. Shall cause him to be healed — Shall pay the charges of his cure.

18, 19. He die not, but keepeth his bed — Observe in this statute the careful purpose to maintain equity and right. He who smote and injured his fellowman in personal contest was responsible for all losses or damage resulting therefrom.

Verse 19. Shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.] This was a wise and excellent institution, and most courts of justice still regulate their decisions on such cases by this Mosaic precept.

Verses 18, 19. With a stone — Or any other instrument fit for such a mischievous purpose. The loss of his time — Of the profit which he commonly made of his time in the way of his calling. Shall cause him to be healed — Shall pay the charges of his cure.

18, 19. He die not, but keepeth his bed — Observe in this statute the careful purpose to maintain equity and right. He who smote and injured his fellowman in personal contest was responsible for all losses or damage resulting therefrom.

V. 20. 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 20. With a rod — The usual instrument of correction, whereby is implied, that if he killed the person with a sword or any such weapon he was to be put to death; and he die under his hand — While the master is correcting him; he shall be punished — As the magistrate or judge shall think fit, according to the circumstances.

20. Smite his servant — Many writers assume that foreign bondservants, not Hebrew servants, are intended here; but the law itself does not so discriminate. The reason given in the next verse, namely, that the servant is his property, evidently led to a distinction in the punishment of this kind of manslaughter. It was assumed that no man would wilfully destroy his own property by killing his slave. It was considered a master’s right to chastise his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and if death resulted from the excessive severity of the punishment it would be accidental rather than intentional. In case death resulted the man was to be surely punished, but the measure of the penalty is not prescribed; that was doubtless to be left to the magistrates to determine.

Verse 21. If the slave who had been beaten by his master died under his hand, the master was punished with death; see Genesis 9:5, 6. But if he survived the beating a day or two the master was not punished, because it might be presumed that the man died through some other cause. And all penal laws should be construed as favourably as possible to the accused.

Verse 21. He is his money — His possession, bought with his money; and, therefore, 1st, He had a power to chastise him according to his demerit, which might be very great. 2d, He is punished by his own loss. And, 3d, May be presumed not to have done this purposely and maliciously.

Verse 22. And hurt a woman with child] As a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and as every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, therefore any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fruit of her womb might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offence; and as the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder-the person was put to death; Exodus 21:23.

Verses 22, 23. And yet no mischief follow — That is, if the woman die not, as appears from the next verse, or the child was not formed and alive in the womb; he shall be surely punished — The woman’s husband shall impose the fine, and if it be unreasonable, the judges shall have a power to moderate it. If any mischief follow — If the woman die, or if the child was formed and alive, the offender was to be punished with death. Thou shalt give life for life — By the judgment of the magistrate.

22-25. As the woman’s husband will lay upon him — The Hebrews threw every possible safeguard about the fruit of the womb, and an injury of the kind here specified was treated as a very grave offence. If death resulted it was punished as a capital crime, and life for life was demanded. If, however, other and less serious damage followed, the punishment was to be proportioned, according to a rigorous law of retaliation, (lex talionis.) The woman might be injured in eye, tooth, hand, or foot, or by means of burning, (branding by a hot iron,) or some other wound or stripe, purposely or accidentally given, or the unborn offspring might be harmed in some of these ways, and a corresponding injury was accordingly to be inflicted upon the offender. The lex talionis, or law of retaliation, which appears in this passage and in Leviticus 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 19:21, is one of the most simple and ancient conceptions of righteous retribution. It has often been condemned as barbarous, but it is grounded in the intuitions of justice, and asserted itself in the legislation of many ancient nations, as the Romans, Greeks, and Indians. “It would seem,” says Michaelis, “that Moses retained the law of retaliation from a more ancient, and a very natural, law of usage.” It would naturally tend to prevent personal injuries, and all must see and acknowledge that when a man speedily receives in his own person the same damage he wilfully inflicted on another, he but receives his deserts and has no ground to complain. But, like the law which authorized the nearest kinsman of a murdered man to avenge his death, this law was liable to be abused. It gave too much room for the gratification of personal bitterness and hatred, and hence, mainly, the reason of our Lord’s words in Matthew 5:38,

39. The New Testament teaching, as has been so often explained, does not condemn the Mosaic law as unjust, but warns against the feeling of personal bitterness and revenge which is so likely to arise from a sense of injury. That should rather be crucified by a doing good for evil where the public welfare will not suffer thereby.

Verses 22, 23. And yet no mischief follow — That is, if the woman die not, as appears from the next verse, or the child was not formed and alive in the womb; he shall be surely punished — The woman’s husband shall impose the fine, and if it be unreasonable, the judges shall have a power to moderate it. If any mischief follow — If the woman die, or if the child was formed and alive, the offender was to be punished with death. Thou shalt give life for life — By the judgment of the magistrate.

22-25. As the woman’s husband will lay upon him — The Hebrews threw every possible safeguard about the fruit of the womb, and an injury of the kind here specified was treated as a very grave offence. If death resulted it was punished as a capital crime, and life for life was demanded. If, however, other and less serious damage followed, the punishment was to be proportioned, according to a rigorous law of retaliation, (lex talionis.) The woman might be injured in eye, tooth, hand, or foot, or by means of burning, (branding by a hot iron,) or some other wound or stripe, purposely or accidentally given, or the unborn offspring might be harmed in some of these ways, and a corresponding injury was accordingly to be inflicted upon the offender. The lex talionis, or law of retaliation, which appears in this passage and in Leviticus 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 19:21, is one of the most simple and ancient conceptions of righteous retribution. It has often been condemned as barbarous, but it is grounded in the intuitions of justice, and asserted itself in the legislation of many ancient nations, as the Romans, Greeks, and Indians. “It would seem,” says Michaelis, “that Moses retained the law of retaliation from a more ancient, and a very natural, law of usage.” It would naturally tend to prevent personal injuries, and all must see and acknowledge that when a man speedily receives in his own person the same damage he wilfully inflicted on another, he but receives his deserts and has no ground to complain. But, like the law which authorized the nearest kinsman of a murdered man to avenge his death, this law was liable to be abused. It gave too much room for the gratification of personal bitterness and hatred, and hence, mainly, the reason of our Lord’s words in Matthew 5:38,

39. The New Testament teaching, as has been so often explained, does not condemn the Mosaic law as unjust, but warns against the feeling of personal bitterness and revenge which is so likely to arise from a sense of injury. That should rather be crucified by a doing good for evil where the public welfare will not suffer thereby.

V. 24. 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.

Verse 24. Eye for eye] This is the earliest account we have of the lex talionis, or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter, it constituted a part of the twelve tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the prætor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the canon law, in reference to all calumniators: Calumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat. “If the calumniator fall in the proof of his accusation, let him suffer the same punishment which he wished to have inflicted upon the man whom he falsely accused.” Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved, otherwise the lex talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sown the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness.

Verses 24, 25. Eye for eye, &c. — This is termed the law of retaliation; and from hence heathen lawgivers took it, and put it among their other laws. It seems probable, that it was not necessary always to take it strictly and literally, but that it might in some cases be satisfied with pecuniary mulcts, or with such satisfaction as the injuring party would give, and the injured accept. Indeed, the injustice of the literal execution of it, in many cases, is apparent; as, when a man that had but one eye or hand, would be thereby condemned to lose it, which to him would be a far greater calamity than he had brought upon his neighbour, by depriving him of one of his eyes or hands. It is especially to be observed, that the execution of these laws was not put into the hands of private persons, and that they were not allowances for private revenge, but rules to regulate the magistrate’s decision, who might go thus far, if he judged the heinousness of the offence required it, but no further; and, no doubt, might abate of this rigour when alleviating circumstances appeared to render it proper so to do.

Ver. 24. Eye for an eye. The judges might in some cases mitigate this. If a man with one eye should do this, the punishment would exceed the crime.

22-25. As the woman’s husband will lay upon him — The Hebrews threw every possible safeguard about the fruit of the womb, and an injury of the kind here specified was treated as a very grave offence. If death resulted it was punished as a capital crime, and life for life was demanded. If, however, other and less serious damage followed, the punishment was to be proportioned, according to a rigorous law of retaliation, (lex talionis.) The woman might be injured in eye, tooth, hand, or foot, or by means of burning, (branding by a hot iron,) or some other wound or stripe, purposely or accidentally given, or the unborn offspring might be harmed in some of these ways, and a corresponding injury was accordingly to be inflicted upon the offender. The lex talionis, or law of retaliation, which appears in this passage and in Leviticus 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 19:21, is one of the most simple and ancient conceptions of righteous retribution. It has often been condemned as barbarous, but it is grounded in the intuitions of justice, and asserted itself in the legislation of many ancient nations, as the Romans, Greeks, and Indians. “It would seem,” says Michaelis, “that Moses retained the law of retaliation from a more ancient, and a very natural, law of usage.” It would naturally tend to prevent personal injuries, and all must see and acknowledge that when a man speedily receives in his own person the same damage he wilfully inflicted on another, he but receives his deserts and has no ground to complain. But, like the law which authorized the nearest kinsman of a murdered man to avenge his death, this law was liable to be abused. It gave too much room for the gratification of personal bitterness and hatred, and hence, mainly, the reason of our Lord’s words in Matthew 5:38,

39. The New Testament teaching, as has been so often explained, does not condemn the Mosaic law as unjust, but warns against the feeling of personal bitterness and revenge which is so likely to arise from a sense of injury. That should rather be crucified by a doing good for evil where the public welfare will not suffer thereby.

Verses 24, 25. Eye for eye, &c. — This is termed the law of retaliation; and from hence heathen lawgivers took it, and put it among their other laws. It seems probable, that it was not necessary always to take it strictly and literally, but that it might in some cases be satisfied with pecuniary mulcts, or with such satisfaction as the injuring party would give, and the injured accept. Indeed, the injustice of the literal execution of it, in many cases, is apparent; as, when a man that had but one eye or hand, would be thereby condemned to lose it, which to him would be a far greater calamity than he had brought upon his neighbour, by depriving him of one of his eyes or hands. It is especially to be observed, that the execution of these laws was not put into the hands of private persons, and that they were not allowances for private revenge, but rules to regulate the magistrate’s decision, who might go thus far, if he judged the heinousness of the offence required it, but no further; and, no doubt, might abate of this rigour when alleviating circumstances appeared to render it proper so to do.

22-25. As the woman’s husband will lay upon him — The Hebrews threw every possible safeguard about the fruit of the womb, and an injury of the kind here specified was treated as a very grave offence. If death resulted it was punished as a capital crime, and life for life was demanded. If, however, other and less serious damage followed, the punishment was to be proportioned, according to a rigorous law of retaliation, (lex talionis.) The woman might be injured in eye, tooth, hand, or foot, or by means of burning, (branding by a hot iron,) or some other wound or stripe, purposely or accidentally given, or the unborn offspring might be harmed in some of these ways, and a corresponding injury was accordingly to be inflicted upon the offender. The lex talionis, or law of retaliation, which appears in this passage and in Leviticus 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 19:21, is one of the most simple and ancient conceptions of righteous retribution. It has often been condemned as barbarous, but it is grounded in the intuitions of justice, and asserted itself in the legislation of many ancient nations, as the Romans, Greeks, and Indians. “It would seem,” says Michaelis, “that Moses retained the law of retaliation from a more ancient, and a very natural, law of usage.” It would naturally tend to prevent personal injuries, and all must see and acknowledge that when a man speedily receives in his own person the same damage he wilfully inflicted on another, he but receives his deserts and has no ground to complain. But, like the law which authorized the nearest kinsman of a murdered man to avenge his death, this law was liable to be abused. It gave too much room for the gratification of personal bitterness and hatred, and hence, mainly, the reason of our Lord’s words in Matthew 5:38,

39. The New Testament teaching, as has been so often explained, does not condemn the Mosaic law as unjust, but warns against the feeling of personal bitterness and revenge which is so likely to arise from a sense of injury. That should rather be crucified by a doing good for evil where the public welfare will not suffer thereby.

Verse 26. If a man smite the eye, &c.] See the following verse.

Verses 26-28. He shall let him go free — A very fit recompense to a servant for such a loss, and certainly meant to be extended to every other material personal injury. If an ox — Or any other creature.

26, 27. Eye of his servant — Here again we note that the male or female servant was reckoned as not enjoying the same natural rights as freemen. The lex talionis did not apply to them, but they were allowed their freedom as a compensation. But we should observe how the provisions of this statute, as well as those of verses 20 and 21, must have tended to mitigate the wrongs of slavery, and protect the lives and persons of slaves, in a way unknown to the laws and customs of other ancient nations.

Verse 27. If he smite out his-tooth] It was a noble law that obliged the unmerciful slaveholder to set the slave at liberty whose eye or tooth he had knocked out. If this did not teach them humanity, it taught them caution, as one rash blow might have deprived them of all right to the future services of the slave; and thus self-interest obliged them to be cautious and circumspect.

Verses 26-28. He shall let him go free — A very fit recompense to a servant for such a loss, and certainly meant to be extended to every other material personal injury. If an ox — Or any other creature.

26, 27. Eye of his servant — Here again we note that the male or female servant was reckoned as not enjoying the same natural rights as freemen. The lex talionis did not apply to them, but they were allowed their freedom as a compensation. But we should observe how the provisions of this statute, as well as those of verses 20 and 21, must have tended to mitigate the wrongs of slavery, and protect the lives and persons of slaves, in a way unknown to the laws and customs of other ancient nations.

Verse 28. If an ox gore a man] It is more likely that a bull is here intended, as the word signifies both, see Exodus 22:1; and the Septuagint translate the rwv shor of the original by taurov, a bull. Mischief of this kind was provided against by most nations. It appears that the Romans twisted hay about the horns of their dangerous cattle, that people seeing it might shun them; hence that saying of Horace. Sat., lib. i., sat. 4, ver. 34: Fænum habet in cornu, longe fuge. “He has hay on his horns; fly for life!” The laws of the twelve tables ordered, That the owner of the beast should pay for what damages he committed, or deliver him to the person injured. See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 22:1”. His flesh shall not be eaten] This served to keep up a due detestation of murder, whether committed by man or beast; and at the same time punished the man as far as possible, by the total loss of the beast.

Verses 26-28. He shall let him go free — A very fit recompense to a servant for such a loss, and certainly meant to be extended to every other material personal injury. If an ox — Or any other creature.

28-32. If an ox gore a man — This statute further guards the sanctity of human life. A potent object-lesson lay in the command that the murderous animal’s flesh shall not be eaten, for it was to be regarded as polluted with the curse of a human life destroyed. Even the owner of such an ox might suffer the death penalty if he had knowingly permitted him to run at large after being duly admonished of the animal’s vicious habit. This penalty might, however, be commuted for a sum of money, which was, doubtless, left to the magistrates to determine. The valuation fixed by the law as the price of a slave thus killed was thirty shekels of silver. Comp. Zechariah 11:12, 13; and Matthew 26:15; 27:3, 4.

28-32. If an ox gore a man — This statute further guards the sanctity of human life. A potent object-lesson lay in the command that the murderous animal’s flesh shall not be eaten, for it was to be regarded as polluted with the curse of a human life destroyed. Even the owner of such an ox might suffer the death penalty if he had knowingly permitted him to run at large after being duly admonished of the animal’s vicious habit. This penalty might, however, be commuted for a sum of money, which was, doubtless, left to the magistrates to determine. The valuation fixed by the law as the price of a slave thus killed was thirty shekels of silver. Comp. Zechariah 11:12, 13; and Matthew 26:15; 27:3, 4.

Verse 30. If there be laid on him a sum of money-the ransom of his life] So it appears that, though by the law he forfeited his life, yet this might be commuted for a pecuniary mulct, at which the life of the deceased might be valued by the magistrates.

Verse 30. If there be laid on him a sum of money — By the avenger of blood, the next akin to the party slain, who is willing to exchange the punishment, or by the judge.

28-32. If an ox gore a man — This statute further guards the sanctity of human life. A potent object-lesson lay in the command that the murderous animal’s flesh shall not be eaten, for it was to be regarded as polluted with the curse of a human life destroyed. Even the owner of such an ox might suffer the death penalty if he had knowingly permitted him to run at large after being duly admonished of the animal’s vicious habit. This penalty might, however, be commuted for a sum of money, which was, doubtless, left to the magistrates to determine. The valuation fixed by the law as the price of a slave thus killed was thirty shekels of silver. Comp. Zechariah 11:12, 13; and Matthew 26:15; 27:3, 4.

28-32. If an ox gore a man — This statute further guards the sanctity of human life. A potent object-lesson lay in the command that the murderous animal’s flesh shall not be eaten, for it was to be regarded as polluted with the curse of a human life destroyed. Even the owner of such an ox might suffer the death penalty if he had knowingly permitted him to run at large after being duly admonished of the animal’s vicious habit. This penalty might, however, be commuted for a sum of money, which was, doubtless, left to the magistrates to determine. The valuation fixed by the law as the price of a slave thus killed was thirty shekels of silver. Comp. Zechariah 11:12, 13; and Matthew 26:15; 27:3, 4.

Verse 32. Thirty shekels] Each worth about three shillings English; see Genesis 20:16; 23:15. So, counting the shekel at its utmost value, the life of a slave was valued at four pounds ten shillings. And at this price these same vile people valued the life of our blessed Lord; see Zechariah 11:12, 13; Matthew 26:15. And in return, the justice of God has ordered it so, that they have been sold for slaves into every country of the universe. And yet, strange to tell, they see not the hand of God in so visible a retribution!

28-32. If an ox gore a man — This statute further guards the sanctity of human life. A potent object-lesson lay in the command that the murderous animal’s flesh shall not be eaten, for it was to be regarded as polluted with the curse of a human life destroyed. Even the owner of such an ox might suffer the death penalty if he had knowingly permitted him to run at large after being duly admonished of the animal’s vicious habit. This penalty might, however, be commuted for a sum of money, which was, doubtless, left to the magistrates to determine. The valuation fixed by the law as the price of a slave thus killed was thirty shekels of silver. Comp. Zechariah 11:12, 13; and Matthew 26:15; 27:3, 4.

Verse 33. And if a man shall open a pit, or-dig a pit] That is, if a man shall open a well or cistern that had been before closed up, or dig a new one; for these two cases are plainly intimated: and if he did this in some public place where there was danger that men or cattle might fall into it; for a man might do as he pleased in his own grounds, as those were his private right. In the above case, if he had neglected to cover the pit, and his neighbour’s ox or ass was killed by falling into it, he was to pay its value in money. Exodus 21:33 and Exodus 21:34 seem to be out of their places. They probably should conclude the chapters, as, where they are, they interrupt the statutes concerning the goring ox, which begin at Exodus 21:28.

THESE different regulations are as remarkable for their justice and prudence as for their humanity. Their great tendency is to show the valuableness of human life, and the necessity of having peace and good understanding in every neighbourhood; and they possess that quality which should be the object of all good and wholesome laws-the prevention of crimes. Most criminal codes of jurisprudence seem more intent on the punishment of crimes than on preventing the commission of them. The law of God always teaches and warns, that his creatures may not fall into condemnation; for judgment is his strange work, i.e., one reluctantly and seldom executed, as this text is frequently understood.

EXODUS

33-36. The provisions of this section must commend themselves as both wise and prudent. Caution, forethought, and most equitable dealing were hereby inculcated.

33-36. The provisions of this section must commend themselves as both wise and prudent. Caution, forethought, and most equitable dealing were hereby inculcated.

33-36. The provisions of this section must commend themselves as both wise and prudent. Caution, forethought, and most equitable dealing were hereby inculcated.

33-36. The provisions of this section must commend themselves as both wise and prudent. Caution, forethought, and most equitable dealing were hereby inculcated.