Exodus 21, 22, 23 Commentary by Mark Dunagan

The Book Of Exodus Chapters 21-23 I. Chapter 21: Davis notes, “Prior to the year 1902 it was the consensus of most critical scholars that law codes such as are found in the Book of Exodus could not have existed prior to the first millennium B.C. This theory was predicated upon an assumed evolution of religious and civil thought in the ancient Near Eastern world. It was argued by the proponents of the Wellhausenian school of biblical criticism that the laws found in the book of Moses reflected a highly developed system of moral and theological thought which they thought would not have been possible in the days of Moses. This whole approach, however, had to be abandoned when the now-famous law code of Hammurabi was discovered in the Acropolis of Susa” (p. 223). Once again, the Bible has stood the test of time, while one unbelieving human theory after another has fallen by the wayside (Romans 3:4).

As we encounter the following chapters we will find that without these additional laws, the Ten Commandments are unworkable. For we need to find out--- is all killing murder, and what do you do with the murderer or the adulterer? What constitutes dishonor towards parents, and what is to be done with a rebellious child?

Concerning Servants: 21:1-11 Points To Note: 1. Immediately we see a difference between the slavery in Israel and that found in surrounding cultures. In Israel there was no such thing as a permanent, involuntary servitude for a Hebrew slave to a Hebrew master (Lev. 25:25-55). 2. Such a person while serving, was treated as a member of the family. The male slave was to be circumcised, observe the laws governing the Sabbath and the religious festivals (Ex. 12:44; 23:12). 3. Servitude could only last for six years, at which time the servant had a choice to leave or remain.

Such a person wasn’t required to buy their freedom (21:2). In fact, such a slave was to be given liberal gifts of good and livestock, so he could get a good start in life (Deut. 15:12-15). The same rule applied to female servants. 4. Such servants were to be freed on the year of Jubilee, every fiftieth year, even if that occurred one year after they signed on (Lev. 25:10, 39-41). 5. Far from being harsh or unfair, this situation enabled the extremely poor to have their needs provided for, so that they could get back on their feet financially. 6. The very

1

fact that a law was given concerning servants who didn’t want to leave their masters (21:5), infers that this may of happened quite often and that many Hebrew masters were kind. 7. Carefully note that the rights of female servants were greatly protected (21:7-10). In addition, it appears that often such female servants either were married by the master or one of his sons. In such cases, snubbing of such a young woman, refusing to treat her as part of the household was forbidden. Let us be impressed that such a female servant is no treated as property, but as a real person, with real needs and real feelings. Such laws protected female family members who might be sold into servanthood to pay family debts.

Capital Offenses: 21:12-17 Here we find a distinction between premeditated murder (21:12,14), and unintentional or accidental deaths (21:13). Later on God would designate six cities of refuge (Numbers 35:6-34; Deut. 19:1-13), to where a person guilty of accidental killing could flee and have his case impartially heard. But in cases of premeditated murder, there was to be no place of asylum, he was to receive no mercy, even if he was clinging to God’s altar (21:14; 1 Kings 2:28-34).

Unfortunately today certain religious groups feel that those who are guilty of horrible crimes do have the right to seek asylum in some church building.

Mistreatment of a father or mother through striking or cursing were all placed on the par with murder and were punished in the same way. “The smiting of one’s parents does not refer to killing them, but beating them violently. It implies a deliberate and persistent opposition to parental authority” (Davis p. 232). Jewish rabbis interpreted 21:15 to mean that only when a blow left a bruise upon parents was the death penalty to be inflicted. An yet I don’t think that a blow that didn’t leave a bruise was any less reprehensible to God than a severe blow.

Physical violence in any form wasn’t tolerated against one’s parents. Please note that God still feels the same way about disrespect which is directed to parental authority (Romans 1:30).

Concerning Physical Injury: 21:18-27 Please note that the master of the slave didn’t have unlimited or uncontrolled power over him or her (21:20-21). Perhaps the recovery of the slave was proof that the master hadn’t intended to kill the slave. Chastisement of servants was considered the right of the owner (Prov. 10:13; 13:24). In these biblical laws we see a striking difference between the penalties found in the law code of Hammurabi. In Hammurabi’s code there were careful class distinctions which are the means by which penalties are determined. Carefully note that when a fight occurred, the guilty party in modern terms had to pay workmen’s compensation and health benefits. God cares about injuries and injustices, as

2

well as the loss of life. “The manner of inflicting the punishment on the slavekilling master is not specified. Some think the master was executed, as 21:12 directs…If all of this seems harsh and sub-Christian to you, consider the additional fact that the law (in 21:26-27) stated that permanent physical injuries to the slave, like the loss of an eye or tooth, brought about his release from slavery” (Fields pp. 468-469). Let us also remember that the New Testament describes the Law as “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12).

Injury To A Pregnant Woman 21:22-25 If a pregnant woman delivered her child prematurely as a result of a blow, but both mother and child were otherwise uninjured, the guilty party was to pay compensation determined by the woman’s husband and the court. Carefully note that the word “miscarriage” (NASV) in verse 22, means an untimely birth, literally “her children come out”. Verse 22 is not teaching that there was no punishment if the unborn child died. Rather, verse 23 is teaching the exact opposite. In verse 22 the child is born premature, but everything turns out all right. But if there is any further injury, or literally, if any injury, then the assailant was to be penalized in proportion to the nature of the severity of the injury. If the mother died, the guilty party forfeited his life, if the baby died, the same penalty, “life for life”. It is clear here that an unborn child is viewed a much a human being as its mother and the killing of an unborn child was considered murder.

Carefully note that God even protected the life of the unborn child.

Point To Note: Those favoring abortion have argued that Exodus 21:22-25 implies that the killing of an unborn child involved a lesser degree of guilt than the killing of a child already born. In the margin of the NASV, the translators acknowledge that the Hebrew phrase translated “so that she has a miscarriage”, literally means “her children come out”. The same term used for a child from infancy to the age of twelve is used here. The second important observation is that the “further” inserted by the NASV translators (in italics) does not appear in the Hebrew, nor according to some is it even implied in the Hebrew. The Hebrew as it stands is perfectly clear, “and there is no injury”. “Thus the whole sentence really should be translated. ‘And when men struggle together and strike a pregnant woman and her children come forth, but there is no injury, he shall be certainly fined….but if there shall be an injury, then you shall pay life for life’. There is no ambiguity here whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus (baby) under this rule” 1

1

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer, pp. 247-248.

3

Eye For Eye Verses 23-25 are probably one of the most misunderstood principles in the Old Testament. First of all, this legislation was never meant for the individual to apply as he or she saw fit. Rather, it was a standard of measure the judges in Israel were to use for handing out punishments (22; Lev. 24:19,20; Deut. 19:21).

The thought is that the punishment should fit the crime, no more and no less.

Carefully note that in the context, eye for eye never meant that if someone puts your eye out, you can put their eye out. For the servant who lost an eye to a master, was set free! (26) Far from being harsh or cruel, this law was designed to prevent injustices, it prevented extreme harsh retaliations, such as when a wrongdoer’s entire family was wiped out for his misdeed (Genesis 34:25-31).

Lest we think that such is a bad or unenlightened law, our modern court system awards thousands and millions of dollars to people who slipped on somebody’s sidewalk, or who clumsily spilled hot coffee upon themselves. Our modern society is in no moral condition to pass any sort of negative judgment upon anything written in the Old Testament. Smith notes, “Jesus did not repudiate this principle in Matthew 5:38-42; He rejected the misuse of lex talionis (eye for an eye) in personal vengeance” (p. 306).

There is a difference between an accident and outright negligence (21:28-29).

Verse 30 infers that the negligent owner of such an animal could escape the death penalty only if the family of the dead man or woman opted for financial compensation, and he could pay their price. In 21:31 carefully note that men and women have the same value before God. Note the fairness and simplicity in 21:35.

Point To Note: The price of a slave was 30 shekels of sliver (Zech. 11:12; Matt. 26:15). But note, even in the case of a gored slave, the slave was still a person, the blood of a slave brings blood-guilt, like that of any other man, and the ox must be killed.

II. Chapter 22: Concerning Thieves: 22:1-4 No doubt this heavy compensation effectively deterred animal theft. “Reparation for an ox is fivefold (as against fourfold for a sheep), since a trained ox is not only more valuable, but harder to replace. The ox to the Israelite was what the family water buffalo is in South-east Asia---almost a member of the family. Like a horse, an ox takes years to train” (Cole p. 171).

4

If a thief was slain while breaking in at night, the avenger of blood (family member wanting to avenge the death of the thief) was not permitted to harm the person who had killed the thief. However, if this unlawful or forcible entry into the house occurred in daylight and the thief was slain, then the slayer of the thief was held guilty of that blood and could to slain by the next of kin. “The reason for the difference between the two aspects of this law is that one who enters the house by night is judged as having uncertain motives. In other words, his entrance may have a purely murderous intent….On the other hand, one who enters by day fully exposes himself and the weapons he carries” (Davis p. 238).

In the daylight, the household has no excuse for killing the thief, besides, he can even identity the man. Note, even a thief had some rights. God is also concerned about protecting the lives of criminals. God believes in the right for us to defend ourselves and protect our family, but we are not given the right to use deadly force when our lives are clearly not in danger.

Concerning Property Damage: 22:5-6 It was not uncommon in the ancient world to clear the land with the use of fire.

Such a practice, of course had its risks. Carefully note that such laws infer that God realizes some people are lazy and careless. “Probably some inconsiderate (or greedy) people thought they could profit more by pasturing another man’s field than the law would possibly exact from them in punishment. Therefore God decreed that they had to make restitution from the best part of their fields” (Fields p. 486).

Concerning Honesty: 22:7-15 Today many cases like those described in the following verses are found in small claims court. The practice of leaving or depositing personal property with another was not unusual in ancient times. There were very few professional bankers or keepers of warehouses. “When one had to leave his country for purposes of business it was common for him to deposit his goods with another to care for them. The laws included in verses 7 to 13 deal with the responsibility of the man who accepted such deposits especially in the light of possible theft or destruction of that property” (Davis p. 239). “This is it” (22:9) “The Israelites apparently did not follow the Anglo-Saxon dictum of ‘finders are keepers’: a lost object remains the possession of the original owner, who can claim it on sight” (Cole p. 172).

Concerning Sexual Immorality: 22:16-17,19

Sexual relations with animals were evidently a common practice among the Canaanites (Lev. 18:23-24). “In the laws of the Hittites it was permissible for a man to cohabit with certain animals for which there would be no punishment” (Davis p. 240). In Canaanite (Ugaritic) literature, there is a story of Baal coupling with a cow in order to be saved magically from death.

5

The seduction of a girl who was betrothed was punished much more severely than an unattached virgin (Deut. 22:23-24). Compare with Deut. 22:28-30.

“Since a man has taken a girl without paying bride-price, bride-price he must pay, for who else will pay it now? Also, he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses. Even if he does, the price must still be paid: this both recompenses the father and punishes the man” (Cole p. 173). In addition, the woman is treated as a person of value. The father may refuse such a marriage, partly due to the feelings of his daughter towards this man.

Concerning Idolatrous Customs: 22:18-20 A “sorceress”. “This word is used to describe one who claimed supernatural knowledge or power which was used to influence the gods or to cast magic spells” (Davis p. 241). Such would include mediums and spiritualists. God condemned such things because they were methods that people had attempted to devise so they didn’t need Him. “we might say that to desire to know the future shows lack of faith, while to desire to control the future is even worse” (Cole p. 174). See Lev. 19:31; 20:6,27; Deut. 18:10-11; 1 Kings 21:6; 1 Chron.

10:13. The New Testament also condemns sorcery and witchcraft (Galatians 5:20; Revelation 21:8; 22:15).

The word translated “utterly destroyed” in 22:20, comes from the Hebrew verb haram. The related noun is herem, an accursed thing, something devoted to destruction at God’s orders. Those who sacrificed to other gods were accursed, put under the ban, and devoted to destruction. See Galatians 1:6-9.

Concerning The Needy: 22:21-27 The Law contains many ordinances concerning the treatment of the less fortunate and the vulnerable, like the widow and orphan. Foreigners and strangers were to be treated with compassion and kindness because the Israelites themselves had once been strangers in Egypt. “The prohibition against oppressing a foreigner is most significant because such laws apparently did not exist among other nations. The Israelite was commanded to love strangers (Lev. 19:34)” (Davis p. 241). See also Deut. 10:19. Even though the people of Israel were God’s people, this didn’t give the Israelites the right to become racists. The stranger would include a person from a nation other than those nations which God had commanded the Israelites to destroy. Unlike other Near Eastern law codes, the Bible shows a great interest in protecting the rights of the widows and orphans (Exo. 23:11; Lev. 19:9,10; Deut. 14:29; 16:11,14; 24:19-21; 26:12,13). In times of apostasy the nation forgot many of these regulations and did indeed exploit such people (Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Jeremiah 7:5-7; 23:3; Mal. 3:5; Matthew 23:14). God reminds the Israelites that they were not to take advantage of such people, because they themselves were very vulnerable (22:24).

6

Verses 25 to 28 are designed to prevent the exploitation of the poor by the charging of exorbitant rates of interest upon loans. For Israelites in financial need, loans were to be interest-free (Lev. 25:35-38; Deut. 15:7-11; 23:19-20). If a loan was made to a poor person, some valuable possession of his, usually a cloak, was normally given to the creditor as a pledge of repayment. His cloak, however, had to be returned to him by sunset to give him comfort at night (Deut.

24:10-13; Job 22:6). Carefully note that interest isn’t wrong ( Deut. 23:19-21; Matthew 25:27; Luke 19:23). These laws were designed to prevent the poor from being taken into perpetual slavery. “Anyone who has lived in underdeveloped countries will know the crippling burden of exorbitant rates of interest, especially in an agrarian society where the farmer is dependent on seasons� (Cole p. 175). In Babylonia, an interest rate of 33% and later 100% on crops was not uncommon (lest we also mention credit card rates of 21%) Carefully note that centuries later these laws were still considered binding by God (Nehemiah 5:3-10). While taking a cloak as a pledge was legal, it was barely so. It had to be returned that night. Another item that could not be kept as security for a loan was a handmill or mill stone (Deut. 24:6). Without these times a poor man or woman could not grind grain for their daily bread.

Concerning Reverence: 22:28-31 This applied to rulers who might be unreasonable, as well as the noble and respected ones. Paul quotes this verse in Acts 23:5. Compare with Romans 13:1-7; Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17. God realizes that disrespect towards those in authority quickly can lead to disrespect and disregard for all forms of authority, including Divine authority.

Verses 22:29-30 reminds the people that they are always to give God His dues, whether it is respect, or a practical aspect of that respect, i.e. remembering that the firstborn of their sons and animals belonged to Him (13:3,12). God always deserves their best.

The reasoning behind 22:31 probably included the following: 1. This animal may have been killed by an unclean animal. 2. The blood had not be properly drained from it. It was also unthinkable that a holy person should behave like a vulture. If they were obedient, God would bless them, there would be no need to act like scavengers or heathens. Note how many of the these laws produce a civilized society (Deut 4:6-8).

III. Chapter 23: Concerning Justice: 23:1-9 These admonitions are linked with the ninth commandment (20:16). The Israelites were to bear a true witness in all legal cases. 23:2 is significant, and

7

it is still a problem today. “It was commanded that one not follow a multitude to do evil or be influenced by a multitude in the implementation of justice. It has always been characteristic of human behavior to want to be accepted by the masses and to be part of a large movement” (Davis p. 243). Which means that God isn’t impressed by polls or majority rule. The majority can never make “right” what God says is “wrong” (Matthew 7:13-14).

23:3 A witness wasn’t to allow himself to be swayed by the majority view, in addition he wasn’t to be influenced by the destitution of the party against whom he might testify. Poverty isn’t an excuse for sinning or breaking the law. God realizes that often what rules in many courts is money and class envy—rather than justice. “It was the guilt or innocence of the party that was the crucial point of real justice (cf. Lev. 19:15)” (Davis p. 243).

23:4-5 Enemy in the context might mean one’s “legal adversary”. “Justice demands that we treat him like any other neighbor, and certainly that we do not ‘take it out’ of his helpless livestock. It is only a short step from this practical concern for the good of our adversary to the ‘love your enemy’ of Matthew 5:44” (Cole p. 177). “How beautiful! Animosity is not to destroy one’s willingness to be of assistance in the times of need” (Fields p. 508). Compare with Deut. 22:4; Lev. 19:18.

Even today there remains the temptation to deny justice because of one’s social status (23:6), accepting bribes, which was a common problem in the ancient world (Deut. 16:19), and oppressing a stranger, because they had no family which could come to their defense.

Concerning The Sabbaths: 23:10-13 On every seventh year the land wasn’t to be cultivated. Such a command reminded the Israelites that God owned the land and that it was theirs merely as a trust (Lev. 25:23). Such a year also was designed to assist the poor. See also Lev. 25:1-7 and Deut. 15:1-3. In addition, it also required that the people trust in God’s promise that the yield of the sixth year would be enough to cover the seventh year (Lev. 25:20-22; Neh. 10:1). “In the following centuries Israel neglected keeping its sabbatical years. The seventy years of Babylonian captivity was partly intended to make up for unkept sabbatical years (2 Chron.

36:21)” (Fields p. 511). Note that God was also concerned about the “beast of the field” (23:11). Cole notes, “This is not a primitive taboo, but deeply theological. The glory of Israel’s faith is the belief that God preserves both man and beast (Psalm 36:6) and feeds the wild animals every day (Psalm 104:21)” (p. 178). In verse 12 the humanitarian nature of the Sabbath day is stressed.

It gave the Israelites a chance to catch their breath. “By keeping the Sabbath, every Israelite was reminded that the had a soul and there was a higher life than mere drudgery” (Fields p. 512). Note that everyone was equal when it came to the Sabbath Day.

8

The command to abstain from even mentioning the names of other gods (23:13), was an effective way of denying their very existence. In addition, such would prevent intermarriages with idolatrous peoples. “This verse probably accounts for the dropping of the name of Baal in the names of several men whose names included Baal’s name. Instead of Baal the word bosheth (shame) was inserted.

Thus Jerubbaal (Judges 6:32) became Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. 11:21).

Concerning The Annual Feasts: 23:14-19 All male Israelites were required to come before the Lord for these three feasts (Exodus 34:23; Lev. 23; Deut. 16:1-17). Though, not required women and children often went with the men (1 Samuel 1:3,4; Luke 2:41-43). “none shall appear before Me empty-handed” (23:15), means that no man was to come to the central place of worship without an offering.

“Feast of Harvest”-also called the feast of weeks (Lev. 23:9-21; Deut. 16:9-12) and the day of first-fruits (Num. 28:26). It is called Pentecost in the New Testament (Acts 2:1; 20:16). It came fifty days after the first grain was harvested, or seven weeks after Passover and the feast of unleavened bread.

“Feast of Ingathering”-same as the feast of booths or tabernacles (Lev. 23:34,3943; Deut. 16:13-15). This feast occurred in late September. “Ingathering” is taken from the gathering in of the grapes and olives, which had been completed by that time each year. During this feast the Israelites lived outdoors in temporary brush arbors called booths or tabernacles. This was designed to remind them year by year of their wilderness wandering experiences.

Carefully note that at least three times a year everyone in Israel was reminded of what God had done in the past for His people.

23:18-19 Leavened bread was not to be offered with blood sacrifices, and the fat of the sacrifices was to be completely burned. Israel’s burnt-offerings (animal sacrifices) were to be accompanied by a grain or meal offering, which was sometimes presented in the form of baked bread (Lev. 2:4-5; Numbers 15:1-9.

“The custom of not leaving sacrifices unconsumed overnight seems to have applied to all Israel’s sacrifices (See Deut. 16:4; Ex. 12:10). The practice impressed Israel with the seriousness and the unique function of sacrifices.

They were not to be treated as leftover garbage” (Fields p. 515) The prohibition not to “boil a kid in his mother’s milk” might seem strange to us.

But we know that boiling sacrificial kids (young goats) in their mother’s milk was a common ritual practice or fertility rite of the Canaanites. One text seems to indicate that such was a practice was associated with a Canaanite “spell”.

Once again, we see that God is concerned about the humane treatment of

9

animals. “On the basis of verse 19, the Jewish dietary law forbidding milk to be consumed at any meal in which meat is eaten, was built” (Davis p. 247).

Concerning The Conquest Of The Land: 23:20-33 Concerning the angel in 23:20, compare with 20:23; Isaiah 63:9. It is made very clear that Israel was to have no mercy upon the tribes in Canaan, because of their evil practices. The religious system that presently existed in Canaan was to be completely destroyed (23:24). The blessings of obedience included abundant grain harvests, rainfall, health, healthy children and long lives. Note that the shrines or idols that Israel was to destroy were often fertility symbols.

The Israelites needed to believe that the true source of health, longevity and fertility was God—and not these idols.

The “hornet” probably refers to anything which helped Israel to be victorious in its conquest, psychological terror, storms (Josh. 10:11), etc…Anything that God used to soften up the Canaanites and undermine their effectiveness and courage. Deut. 7:20, Joshua 24:12. Concerning the expression “My terror” see Joshua 2:11.

23:29-30 Practical reasons are here given why the conquest of the land won’t happen in a single year. Joshua’s Conquest, which did not wipe out all the enemies, took seven years (1406-1399 B.C.). Such would prevent the land from becoming desolate and would also keep the wild beasts from multiplying. The problem of roaming wild dogs and lions was not uncommon in places where the population was small (2 Kings 17:24-25). Other delays in the colonization of the land were due to the fact that God wanted to prove Israel to see whether they would obey His laws (Judges 2:21-23).

Point To Note: Often we want everything accomplished in a hurry, or done right now! But God knew at this time there weren’t enough Israelites to populate the entire promised land. The process of occupation and colonization was to be a progressive one in order that they might maintain complete control over the land. Sometimes we wonder why we don’t convert more people, one reason could be that we can only handle and properly teach so many babes in Christ at a time.

23:31 This was realized under the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 4:21).

23:32-33 It is made clear that the Canaanites were the enemy (because of their immoral ways and false religious system). No covenant was to be made with them, they were to be driven out completely. In like manner, the church cannot afford to make any covenants with false teachers or those who refuse to embrace God’s truth (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1ff).

10

11