Exodus 21 Footnotes

21:2,7 Some have suggested that these verses contradict the command in Lv 25:42, which forbids selling Israelites as slaves. However, the rules set forth in Lv 25 do not prohibit Israelites from becoming slaves. Instead, they regulate situations in which Israelites had to sell themselves to other Israelites in order to pay debts. Israelites who became slaves had to be given rights and privileges normally associated only with hired workers.

21:10 Polygamy, like many other sins including divorce, is an expression of the hardness of people’s hearts and is contrary to God’s will (Mt 19:8). God’s ideal from the beginning was for one man to marry one woman and for the couple to remain in an exclusive sexual relationship for as long as both partners were alive. Biblical evidence for this is found in the fact that God created woman as a uniquely suitable helper for one man—Adam (Gn 2:18-24). When the pair disobeyed God, they could no longer implement many aspects of God’s plan for human life. Because of sin, conflict, oppression and death became part of the human landscape. People’s sinful nature often leads to sexual misconduct. As in the case of Lamech, the first recorded polygamist (Gn 4:19), men will be inclined to take multiple sexual partners for themselves.

The law presented here and in other laws in the Torah is not meant to condone polygamy. It is not an expression of God’s ideal but a concession to humanity’s hard-heartedness. The law recognizes the male’s sexual inclinations but seeks to limit the injury to women that could result; all wives must be given adequate food, clothing, and intimacy. Far from approving of polygamy, the law of Moses discourages it by placing high demands on anyone who chooses this option, and it preserves the essential rights of polygamy’s potential victims.

21:20-21,26 The Bible does not condone slavery any more than it condones polygamy or divorce. Instead, it establishes humane limits for an existing, evil system. Slavery had long been a feature of human society. The Israelites were always to remember that they themselves had been the victims of this practice for an extended time (Gn 37:28,36; Ex 1:8-14) as slaves in Egypt (Dt 5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18,22). Accordingly, Israelite slave owners were to treat their slaves in a fair and charitable manner. They were to be given a day of rest every week (Ex 20:10) and, as beings created in God’s image, were expected to attend religious festivals (Dt 12:12,18; 16:11). Israelites who were slaves were to be treated with special benevolence and to be released after six years (Ex 21:2; Dt 15:12) or in the Year of the Jubilee (Lv 25:40-41), whichever came first. Female slaves who became wives to their owners or owner’s sons were to be treated with all the respect and rights of a regular wife (Ex 21:8-11). When an Israelite’s term of slavery had ended, he was to be given a gift (Dt 15:13-14). If slaves were physically abused by their owners, they were to be granted immediate freedom (Ex 21:26-27) and, unlike animals, the killing of a slave constituted a crime (v. 20).

21:23-25 Does the Bible teach that people should retaliate or that they should “turn the other cheek” (see Mt 5:38-39; Lk 6:27-29)? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus contrasted a popular interpretation of the law of Moses with his own teachings. In doing this he was not saying that OT law was wrong, only that his adversaries’ way of applying it to situations was wrong; they had missed its true intent by emphasizing the letter of the law.

The “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” passage did not require people to pay someone back for a wrong done to them. Its purpose was to establish limits for retaliation. The most one could do in response to knocking out a tooth was to knock out the other person’s tooth; a person could not be killed for injuring someone’s eye. As Jesus pointed out, a person who was wronged by another could choose not to retaliate for what had been done to him. Often such a response would be the best way to deal with the problem. In every case, it should be the first option considered.

21:29-30 This passage indicates that the person responsible for the death of another might be able to ransom his life; Nm 35:31, on the other hand, suggests that the death penalty could not be commuted. Biblical commentators have long noted that these two passages complement, rather than contradict, each other. The passage teaches that a person whose negligence caused someone else’s death would have to be punished, but their life might be spared. The passage in Numbers directs that anyone who has willfully taken someone else’s life must be executed.