OLD TESTAMENT ETHICS, LESSON 2

THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT: EXODUS 20: 22 - 23: 33

I. The Title comes from Ex. 24:7. Human values are elevated above material values.

A. Different from 10 commandments. Case law, since many start with “if” or “when.”

B. “Participle law.” They are unconditional and usually are very brief and most carry the death

penalty.

C. A suggested outline may go something like this.

(1) Cases Involving Slaves ( 21: 2-11)

(2) Cases Involving Homicides (21: 12-17)

(3) Cases Involving Bodily Injuries (21: 18-32)

(4) Cases Involving Property Damages (21:33- 22:15).

(5) Cases Involving Society (22: 16-31).

(6) Cases Involving Justice and Neighborliness (23: 1-9), and

(7) Laws of Sacred Seasons (23: 10-19).

Background. Israel at Sinai

II. Israel was called to be a special people. They were to be a “priestly kingdom and a “holy nation.”

They were not to follow the ways of the peoples around them. (Ex. 23:24). They were to “keep all my statues and all my ordinances....You shall not follow the practices of the nations that I am driving out before you” (Lev. 20: 22-23). “ If you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be a treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.” ( Exodus 19: 5-6).

II. The ancient Israelites did not view the law as punishing. See Psalms 1:1-2 and also Psalms 119: 14-16. To them, the law represented God's love much as a father loves his child. But where the father child relationship exists, there is also punishment for the erring child. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all of your iniquities.” (Amos 3:2). It is no different with us today.

III. All laws concerning Israel must be interpreted in light of God's special relationship with Israel including the 'concept' of the Land and their existence as a 'covenant community' much as ours is today in what the Calvinist call the "church."  The purpose of this study is to interpret these laws in light of their special circumstances and consider how they apply to us today.

The Prologue ( Ex. 20: 22-26; 21:1)

I. God is the fountain head of law. “ I have spoken to you from heaven” (v.22).

a. All crimes against law are sin because law is an expression of the Divine will.

b. Israel is responsible, not to a legislative body nor human ruler, but to God Himself. He is the sole          legislator.

c. Man's civil, moral, and religious obligations all are combined in a single corpus since they stem from God.

d. Human life is not commensurate with property (since man was made in the Icon of God), and thus monetary compensation or property settlements are absent from the biblical legislation but present in extra biblical legal corpora.

II. It may be noticed that no visible form of God was seen by the people when God spoke from heaven. Therefore, completely abandon any thought of trying to embody me (God) in the form of a image.

Law, like life (God created life and law) begins with the worship of God so make no attempts to worship an idol. (This is true in vs. 23 with the injunction against using a tool on the stone altar).

It is clear what is represented in the section is “judgments” or “precedents” given for the magistrates to use in civil disputes. Moreover, they were “set before the people,” meaning this was a protection against a ruling special class of lawyers and judges developing. Much as today, the Constitution of the United States is set before the people.

CASES INVOLVING SLAVES (21:2-11).

I. People, not property were the heart of OT legislation. Most of the legislation is concerned about rights, limits of control, and person hood of slaves. Slavery in the OT is not the same as the slavery we recognize in modern western countries. There were however aspects of it that were subject to abuse and the law sought to limit the potential for abuse. Besides this material, other blocks of teaching on the subject can be found in Lev. 25:39-43; Deut. 15: 12-18; and Jeremiah 34:8-22. Each has a slightly different set of circumstances. In Deuteronomy 15:12 the male and female slave is sold while in Leviticus 25:39 the slaves sells himself into servitude in Leviticus 25: 39 until the Year of Jubilee. The servitude is limited to six years in Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:7.

Since the land could not be sold, since it never belonged to Israel.

Notice Jeremiah 2:7; YHWH claims the land as His land and not Isreal's land.

This meant that the only collateral available to the Hebrews was their labor power. The debt could not extend beyond 6 years when the sabbatical year came, thus a limit was placed on debt ceiling and bondage service. After 6 years, the Hebrew then again went free. He or she was once again a “freeman” and “citizen” after the mandatory emancipation.

The slave must leave slavery in the same marital status that he/she entered slavery. Any wife or children coming to the slave while in slavery belonged to master. There are other conditions we will consider as we look at the text.

Exodus 21: 2-11.

v. 2, Must serve for 6 years. To be released on the 7th year without payment.

v. 3. If married when entering the contract must leave the contract married.

v. 4. If a wife is given to him by the master, the master keeps the wife and any children.

v.5 If the slave loves his master, and does not want to leave his family he must be brought before God (at the courthouse) and have his ear pierced.

v. 6

a. This is a sign that man will belongs to the master permanently.

b. The awl driven through the ear was a of humiliation in the Near East. Probably meant to discourage people from entering slavery.

v. 7 Girl was not sold as a slave but a servant. This is a marriage contract. She is “not to go free,” as the male slaves. She must be redeemed by the family of the seller. If she was bought for a son, she must be treated as a daughter. Having more than one wife is not an excuse to limit the food and clothing of this wife. If the master does not take care of her in decent fashion, he will lose his entire investment.

Cases Involving Homicide (21:12-17).

Human life is so sacred that whoever assails it is subject to forfeiting his/her own life. Five different situations involving the value of another person's life are examined: unintentional manslaughter (v. 12), premeditated murder (vv. 13-14), striking a father or mother (v. 15), kidnapping (v. 16), and dishonoring one's father or mother (v. 17).

Again, it is because that men and women are made in the image of God that these assaults on human dignity, worth, and life itself are viewed so seriously. They clearly contravene the divine order established by God. This does not argue that the life of the accused is not also sacred. The text tries to establish intention before deciding whether a person deliberately plotted against another. Disobedience to parents is a sign of rampant Gentile sin (Rom. 130).

Accidental death is sharply distinguished from intentional murder in vv. 13-14. The expression used in v. 13 is very unusual. “But God lets it happen.” This is an event beyond human control and considered an act of God. Similar expressions of unintentionality are also found in Numbers 35:22, “without design, “ and in Deuteronomy 19: 4-5 “without knowledge.” For these there were the cities of refuge (Numbers 35: 10-34).

So serious is deliberate murder that the unusual first person introduces the code. “I will designate” v. 13, and “my altar” v. 14. This underscores the gravity of the situation since the only other place where direct address appears in the biblical code is in Exodus 20:2, 23. Not even the sanctuary or God's altar (contrary to Roman Catholic belief) is a safe place for those involved in 1st degree murder.

The fifth commandment is reinforced in verses 15 and 17. This command is placed along side of man's duty to God (Lev. 19: 14). Fellow men and neighbors are to be loved as yourself but parents are to be obeyed, honored, feared, and reverenced (Lev. 19:18). This is the first commandment with promise, (Eph. 6:1-4). “That is may be well with you” since the law permitted the stoning of a rebellious child (Deut. 21:-18-21). The overall message is that parents are God's representatives on earth. Another interesting aspect of this section of text is the equality of men and women. Both parents are mentioned here. The law did not allow more liberty for striking the mother than the father. Both parents are owed equal respect.

The fifth offense that was serious enough to call for the death penalty was kidnapping (v. 16). Notice that his was not a crime against property and is not listed in that section. To steal a human being is so bad that it violates the basis of life itself. (Hammurabi Code, No. 14). All five cases presume the abiding moral law that was announced in Genesis 9:6. Any attack on man's blood, his dignity, worth and person hood was an attack on the effigy of God. In every case except murder, there appears to have been a “substitute” or “ransom” since murder is singled out as to be the exception (Num. 35:31).

CASES INVOLVING BODILY INJURIES (21: 18-32).

Five more cases are introduced in which the assault has left bodily injuries. It is once again apparent that the concern is with people and not property. The cases involve: a debilitating injury as a result of two men fighting, (vv. 18-19), a master striking his slave (vv. 20-21), a pregnant woman's labor is prematurely induced when hit by two quarreling men (vv. 22-25), a permanent injury to a slave (vv. 26-27), and an ox goring people (vv. 28-32).

In the first example, a dispute between two men leads to one man being confined to his bed and only able to walk outdoors with the help of a cane or crutches. The injury will not carry physical punishment (Exod. 21:23-25) but the assailant must indemnify his opponent for his “loss of time,” literally “his sitting,” loss of income, and all medical expenses.

Another instance of an injury is the problem of a slave being chastised by his or her master (vv. 20-21). This law relates to only to the legitimate use of the rod: should the master use any other instrument of chastisement, say a lethal weapon, the case would be treated under different laws and might result in the master being tried for murder. The aim of this law was not to place the slave at the master's mercy but to restrict the power of the master. In cases where the slave lived “a day or two” after chastisement,

Page 5

the benefit of doubt was was given to the master only because proof became more difficult. But, if the slave died immediately, no more proof was needed and presumably laws such as Exodus 21:12 would be invoked. The mere risk of losing one's investment – for it must not be forgotten that in the case of the fellow Hebrew, this was like a bank loan situation (v. 21), was a powerful deterrent. Even the slightest injury to one part of the body entitled the slave to has full freedom and exemption from any further obligation to pay back the debt with his labor power (Exod. 21: 26-27). A lose of temper by the master could hurt him/her where it hurts worse, and that is in the pocketbook. Brutality and contempt for human life was and is an offense to God and His law.

A third type of injury raises some difficult exegetical questions. In a fight between two men, a pregnant woman intervened (perhaps a wife of one of the men), and was struck, thus inducing labor immediately. Two different alternatives are envisaged as a result of this blow. (1) “her children come out” with the plural allowing for several children and either sex with the result that “there is no harm,” or (2) “if there is harm,” either to her or the children. The key question is this: is this law similar to other laws found for instance in the code of Hammurabi where a miscarriage is addressed? Most commentators think so but I do not agree with that position. It is true that the Septuagint makes a distinction between a fetus (not fully formed), that will not fit the evidence here. The unspecified “harm” appears to fit either the mother or the children. The most that would be required of the assailant is what would amount to a slap by appearing before a judge and being fined. Those who argue that the harm done is only a miscarriage of a partially formed fetus usually attempt to emend this last phrase to say “he shall pay for the fetus or abortion.” The emendation would not explain why the plural of fetuses was used, nor why one would have a saying at the end of what is otherwise concise legal writing where every word is important and is indispensable for understanding the law. Moreover, there are no versions of the Masoretic text that support this emendation or others such as “according to the decision.”

We must conclude that in this case of assault the offender must still pay some compensation even though the mother and children survived (v. 18-19). The fee or fine would be suggested by the woman's husband and approved by the court. But in the event that “harm” comes either to the pregnant woman or to her children and either of both die, then the principle of talio would be invoked demanding “and eye for an eye” v. 23. This also raises a problem, If this were an accidental fatality, would not the assailant be protected as he was in verse 13 and be exempted from the death penalty? The response would seem to be (1) the talion principle (vv. 23-25) is a stereotyped formula – that only states that the punishment must match the crime, but not exceed the damage done. (2) Numbers 35:31 permitted a “substitute” or “ransom” for all capital offenses except those where it could be demonstrated that willful and premeditated murder was involved. Accordingly, the defendant would have to surrender the monetary value for each life (cf. v. 30) to the deceased wife's husband or deceased child's father.

The lex talionis of vv. 23-25 imposes only a strict limit on the amount of damages that were collectible. This principle is repeated in Lev. 19:21.

We have already seen this fourth case in our discussion of the master discipling the slave. The point to be made a a “permanent” injuries inflicted by capricious owners (vv. 26-27) is that these strong economic sanctions were designed to stop any tendency in the direction of mistreatment.

The fifth and final case of injury involves men and women being gored by an oxen. These laws (vv. 28-32) are paralleled very closely by many ancient near eastern codes of law. The motivation in this text again is social rather than economic. What is more, the ox alone in verse 28 is guilty, but the ox and the owner were guilty when the ox was proven of taking another's persons life in verses 29-30. Genesis 9: 5-6 required that the life of the beast be surrendered when it killed a man made in the image of God just as it required the same of mankind. The age, social status, sex, or title of the person gored made no difference (vv. 31-32), all—male and female, slave and free, boys and girls – were made in the image of God.

Lane