Exodus 21:2-6

Regulations With Regard to Slaves and Violence To Fellowmen (Exodus 21:2).

It is always difficult to appreciate the ancient mind and its working, but there is a case here for seeing a chiastic pattern in Exodus 21:2, especially in the light of clearer examples elsewhere. We may analyse it as follows:

a Dealings with a Hebrew slave (Exodus 21:2).

b Dealings with a daughter sold with a view to marriage and childbearing, if buyer does not marry her he must compensate (Exodus 21:7).

c Manslayers to die but a way of escape if innocent (Exodus 21:12).

d If a man slays with guile he is to be put to death (Exodus 21:14).

e He who smites father and mother to be put to death (Exodus 21:15).

f Kidnappers to be put to death (Exodus 21:16).

e He who curses father and mother to be put to death (Exodus 21:17).

d If one who contends smites another and he does not die he must pay costs (Exodus 21:18).

c Slayers of servants by beating to be punished, but escape if there is delay in dying (Exodus 21:20).

b Striving which hurts a woman and affects childbearing to be punished, but if the wife dies he shall die (Exodus 21:22).

a Dealings in respect to injury to slaves (Exodus 21:26).

Thus ‘a' and its parallel contrast dealings with slaves, ‘b' and its parallel contrast dealings with women affected by a man's behaviour, punishment depending on result, ‘c' and its parallel contrast manslayers of nativeborn and slave but with a possible way of escape depending on circumstances, ‘d' and its parallel simply contrast a manslayer with a possible manslayer, ‘e' and its parallel contrast behaviour towards father and mother. The build up of it all around ‘f' brings out the heinousness of kidnapping in ancient eyes.

These laws probably expand on those already established by Moses (Exodus 15:25). As time went by expansion would always be necessary.

Regulations Concerning Hebrew Bondmen and Bondwomen (Exodus 21:2).

It must be seen as quite remarkable that this coverage of the detail of the ‘judgments' of the Law from Exodus 21-23, begins with these regulations concerning Hebrew bondmen, even prior to those dealing with the fact of the taking of human life. It demonstrates God's care for the weak and vulnerable, but probably arises because of the mention of menservants and maidservants in the fourth ‘word' concerning the Sabbath. ‘Hebrews', if we associate them with the Habiru, had no protector, only God. They were a no-people. And thus His people must have His attitude towards them, for God is the God of the under-privileged. God is saying here, ‘before we consider the details of My commandments regulating your behaviour to each other, let us consider these who are a no-people without protection. Because you are my people you must care for the weak, and vulnerable, and helpless'. They were not only not to make them work on the Sabbath, they must grant them a Sabbath at the end of their term of service.

Alternately we might see that the emphasis here is on the problem of a wife married to such a person while serving in an Israelite household, the question being as to what her position is. The answer given here is quite clear. She must not be taken outside the covenant. If the Hebrew man goes out he goes out by himself, unless he brought his wife with him. If he wishes to retain a wife whom he has wed in an Israelite household he must himself remain within the covenant.

This passage may be analysed as follows:

a If a Hebrew bondman is bought he serves for six years and in the seventh goes out free for nothing (Exodus 20:2)

b If he come in by himself he goes out by himself. If he be married (when he comes in) then his wife shall go out with him (Exodus 20:3).

c If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons and daughters, the wife and children shall be her master's and he goes out by himself (Exodus 20:4).

b If the bondman plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go out free' (Exodus 20:5).

a Then he is brought to God and his ear pierced and nailed to the door or doorpost and he will serve him for ever (Exodus 20:6).

Note that in ‘a' the bondman goes out free for nothing, in the parallel he binds himself to his master and does not go out because he loves master, wife and children. In ‘b' his wife whom he brought with him goes out with him, but in the parallel he remains for the love of his wife whom he has married while in the Israelite household. It may be argued that the central point is ‘c', that a wife given to him while he is in an Israelite household may not go out with him, for that would be for her to be lost to the covenant.

Exodus 21:2

“If you buy a Hebrew bondman he shall serve for six years and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he come in by himself he shall go out by himself. If he be married then his wife shall go out with him. If his master give him a wife and she bear him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out by himself.”

At first these provisions seem a little harsh. But further consideration reveals their logic. Firstly we must consider what is probably meant by a Hebrew bondman.

Early Israel never thought of themselves as ‘Hebrews'. That came much later. They were called Hebrews by outsiders and would refer to themselves as Hebrews when speaking to outsiders, but it was not a name they ordinarily applied to themselves (see Genesis 14:13; Genesis 39:14; Genesis 39:17; Genesis 41:12; Exodus 1:15 to Exodus 2:13). Abram was ‘the Hebrew' to the people who composed the covenant described in Genesis 14. Joseph was a Hebrew in Potiphar's house and to the chief butler. The children of Israel were Hebrews to Pharaoh. But in all cases the description related to outsiders. It is not a name that Yahweh would apply to them or that they would apply to themselves in internal affairs.

But the reason foreigners saw them as ‘Hebrews' was because they saw them as landless and stateless like the Habiru. These Habiru had a long history but in all cases they were landless and stateless (although at some stage some settled down just as Israel did). They could be mercenaries, slaves, shepherds, miners etc. but they stood out as belonging to no country. This was why Israel were seen as Habiru by others, (although it is possible that much later they themselves then took the name and altered it to ‘Hebrew' in their writings to connect back to their ancestor Eber, making it respectable, although there is a slight difference etymologically).

This being so the Hebrew bondman who is in mind is such a person, a landless and stateless person who has been bought into regulated bondage by an Israelite. He is a person of no status. It is quite probable that there were many such ‘Hebrew' bondmen among the children of Israel, for they had been in Egypt where such bondmen would be available, and poverty would have brought others to that situation.

There were a variety of different forms of service in Israel (and among their neighbours). Putting it at its most simple these included hired servants, debt slaves who had to work of a debt by a period of service, and people who entered into a bond to perform service for a certain period in return for an initial payment or a guarantee of a livelihood or some other basis of obligation (bondsmen). The Habiru often survived in this way so that ‘a Hebrew bondman' probably means that this man was taken on as a Habiru. Then there were foreign slaves who were purchased or captured. Their position was permanent. And so on. Leviticus 25:39 says that no Israelite must be enslaved by another Israelite. He may be purchased but he must be treated as though he were a hired servant and released in the year of yubile. There the idea was of a semi-permanent ‘slavery' situation, but somewhat ameliorated because the person was an Israelite. That is different from here for this is a recognised seven year contract.

Note first that here the Hebrew bondman can only be bound for six years (in a seven year contract). Apart from a captive in war no outsider was to be ‘enslaved' for more than six years. We are told later that this is because the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt and should therefore remember and be merciful as they have received mercy (Deuteronomy 15:12). Then he is to go out free for nothing, and is to be well provided for (Deuteronomy 15:13). If he brought his wife with him she is a ‘Hebrew' woman and can therefore go out with him. But if he is married to someone (who is probably not ‘a Hebrew'), whom he has received from his master, then he goes out alone. He cannot take his wife and children outside the covenant community to share his statelessness. They belong to Yahweh and must therefore remain within the community. They remain with their master, to be released in due course depending on their status.

It is significant in this regard that at Nuzi we learn that Hapiru there similarly entered into limited servitude, a servitude similarly limited to seven years, after which their obligation ended. Israel was to be more generous. Theirs was also to be a seven year contract but they were to give him the seventh year free so that his obligation finished after six years, thus taking into account the principles of the Sabbath year. So the seven year contract for Hapiru/Habiru seems to be a general custom of the time. As Deuteronomy points out this was double the normal length of service for an Israelite (Deuteronomy 15:18). Three years are the years of a hired servant (Isaiah 16:14).

The principle that the wife remained behind was merciful for two reasons. Firstly such a wife may find the life of a ‘Hebrew' hard to bear, and secondly if she went she might be removed from Yahweh's mercy in the covenant. This was a possibility that could not be allowed.

But the Hebrew slave was faced with an alternative. If he loved his wife and wanted to remain with her there was a course of action he could take. He could become an ‘ebed ‘olam (a perpetual henchman), regularly someone of value and importance. Such slaves were known from elsewhere and are mentioned at Ugarit. This might also especially appeal to an older person without family, or someone who might find it difficult to build a life on the ‘outside'. They would have a place for life in a satisfactory environment, loving and being loved.

Exodus 21:5

“But if the bondman shall say plainly, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children. I will not go out free'. Then his master shall bring him to God, and will bring him to the door or to the door post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever.”

In order to keep a wife obtained within the covenant community the Hebrew must become a member of the covenant community for ever. Thus he must declare his love for his master, his wife and his children. The love for the master may be to him a secondary matter in real terms if he loved his wife but to the Law it was important that the idea be maintained. It must not be seen as forced on him, for he has the choice. Then his ear is pierced to the tent pole or door post and he becomes a bondman for ever.

“Then his master shall bring him to God.” Possibly a priest had to be called in (at this time probably a head of family) to oversee the ceremony so that all was done in his presence as representing God.

The piercing of the ear would result in the shedding of blood, and the blood sealed the covenant. Furthermore he is brought to the door. This would at this stage be the door of the tent. Later when they received the land of promise it would be a door with door posts. And the awl is then passed through the ear and into the tent pole or door post (Deuteronomy 15:17). This might be seen as symbolising his permanent attachment to this home. But from then on he is a bondman for ever.

If this seems harsh we must remember that such a person may have nowhere to go, and he would thus be exchanging an uncertain future for a certain future with a good master. That it is conceived of as a possible choice demonstrates that such a life was not necessarily one of continuing harshness. Such a slave could well be beloved. But no genuine Israelite would wish to be a bondman for ever, for at the year of yubile (soon to be established - Leviticus 25:13) his family land would be returned to him, which argues against this referring to an Israelite.

While this seems to be a form of slavery it is so by choice. The initial contract was a normal commercial contract and his keep and any benefits he obtained were his wages, and the contract gave him security.

However, we must point out that many commentators see this Hebrew bondman as being an Israelite in bondage for his keep, although it is difficult to see in this case why there should be this unusual mention of ‘Hebrew'. Why not an Israelite bondman? In this case the provision regarding wife and children is purely a commercial one. They do not go out with him because they still belong to their master. And in this case also he can choose to become a permanent bondman.