Shaped by our experience of God (Exod 21:1-6)
Exod 21:1-6
A friend, who worked in IT and was nearing retirement, decided to take a significant salary cut by leaving his well-paying job to support a rather smaller Christian institution. He asked and was promised flexible hours, since some of his work had to be done outside the 9-5 timeframe. However, his employer never honoured this verbal agreement, and my friend felt taken advantage of. Today’s reading opens with regulations regarding slavery and while the parallel with our modern lives is not exact, there are many situations where, as Christians, we are in authority over others (e.g. as employers, heads of a team or in church leadership). Alternatively, we may be under other’s authority (as employees) or dependent on someone’s goodwill because of a need that makes us vulnerable. In either case, the principles gleaned in this section can teach us.
In Israel, a poor person unable to pay his debt could sell himself to meet his obligations, while thieves were ordinarily sold as slaves if they were caught and could not pay restitution for stolen goods (Exod 22:2-3). Slavery, then, was an inevitable part of life. However, God’s people were to apply the Sabbath principle to enslaved fellow Israelites: after six years of work, in the seventh there had to be release without further obligations of payment (Exod 21:2). This teaches us that no matter whether someone’s enslavement was a result of circumstances out of their control or because of their own sin (e.g. theft) there is a limit on how long they are made to pay. Masters were also not to take advantage of a slave’s misery by separating him from his family; those prior bonds had to be honoured and the whole family released together when their time of service was up (Exod 21:3).
It may seem harsh to us that a wife or children acquired during an Israelite slave’s service were not released with him (Exod 21:4), but we have to bear in mind that in the ancient world marriage involved significant expense. If an owner provided his slave with a wife, he (not the slave) would have paid the bride-price and would house and feed the wife and any children born to the couple. Poverty could preclude a man from marrying, and without a child he would have no one to provide for him in old age or carry on the family name. Such a state was considered a curse. Thus, enabling a slave to marry was a generous provision from an owner and not to be abused. If an Israelite slave did not want to become further indebted to his master, he could wait with marriage until he was released. If he accepted the wife provided, he could choose to remain permanently in the master’s service (Exod 21:5-6),[1] which under a good man would have meant security and care for life, a much better prospect than the potential uncertainty and poverty of freedom. The principle from all this seems to be that open-handedness should not be abused and that there should be boundaries around generosity especially where money is involved. Thus, in a modern-day context, a church may decide not to pay off a congregation member’s debt in its entirety, but perhaps give a free gift towards it in combination with an interest-free loan and advice on budgeting, for example.
Ultimately, these OT laws parallel many of the elements in Israel’s story and reflect on God’s character. As the people received God’s grace that put a limit on their bondage, so they should release their brothers and sisters in due time.[2] As God cared and provided for them in generous ways, so they should do the same to their Israelite servants. Finally, Israel committed herself to the Lord’s service out of love forever, which is echoed in the slave’s agreement to serve his master for life.[3] This also highlights that freedom in a free-floating sense is not the ultimate value; rather redemption is a transfer of service from a cruel oppressor to a gracious master. As we relate to others over and under us in authority, may our attitudes be shaped by our experience with our loving God.
[1] Deut 15:12-17 stipulates that a freed Hebrew slave was to be given generous provision on his or her release and this may have enabled a man to buy his wife and any children out of slavery. Alternatively, a master may have included in his farewell gift the freedom of a man’s family though he was not obliged to. Presumably, the freed man could have offered to serve for additional years in exchange for his family’s freedom (Jacob, for instance, though not a slave, worked for each of his wives for 7 years – Gen 29:17, 25-27).
[2] T. Desmond Alexander, Exodus, AOTC (London: Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: IVP), 501.
[3] Ibid., 502.
For interest
Was slavery a God-ordained institution?
As I explain in this post on reading OT law, not every command relates to a God-ordained situation. Variations in the regulation, exceptions and a particular direction of change over time highlight the fact that God may be working with a social reality while pointing His people toward a better way.
While slavery was an unavoidable reality in the ancient world, the fact that Israel was not to enslave fellow Israelites permanently suggests that it was seen as less than ideal. After all, God had freed His people from bondage. Paul’s reflections in 1 Cor 7:21-24 also indicate that becoming free is better, though the apostle is not advocating a radical change in the social realities of his time. Nevertheless, we get the sense that slavery is not a positive state to be in. Finally, Paul’s advocacy for Philemon’s runaway slave (Philem 10-16) again points towards a vision of a better way where people are not enslaved to each other. All these instances show that slavery was a necessary evil and not a God-ordained institution for all time.
The meaning of the ceremony for becoming a permanent slave[4]
The slave is brought to God’s presence (probably meaning a local sanctuary or later the Jerusalem temple). Either his ear is pierced at the doorpost of the sanctuary or, more likely, in the home. The ear is symbolic of hearing and a servant is always listening for his master’s command; thus, it marked his obedience and service to the owner. Whether a distinguishing token was put into the hole as a sign of the man’s permanent status as a slave is unclear. The door in a house is unavoidable; one passes through it all the time. Thus, whenever the slave did so, he would see the hole and remember his position. Alternatively, the door represented the boundary of the house where the man served, so that the ceremony there reminded him that he was ‘nailed in place’ and now belonged to the household permanently.
[4] Based on William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40, AB 2A (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 194-95.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.