The Law is Just (Pt. 1): Does Exodus 22:3-6 Condone the Splitting of Slave Families?

This is going to be the first installment in a series of blog posts I am titling "The Law is Just." The title pretty much summarizes my goal. I am going to be examining the case laws of the Old Testament in order to demonstrate that they are 1) completely reasonable in their ancient near-eastern context, and 2) are fully in line with the realities of a sinful people living amidst a holy God.

I am going to kick off this series by examining the first controversial case law one might come across if they are reading through the Torah. That is Exodus 21:3-6:

"If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever." (Exodus 21:3-6 NKJV)

In many people's eyes, it is clear enough that the Bible "condones" slavery, which is problematic in light of what happened in this country's first century, and texts like this seem to only make matters worse for the Bible's credibility in our land. Does this text teach that slave families can be broken up, or that the institution is viewed as more important than marriage?

In answering that question we first need to consider three truths about Old Testament case laws, and case laws in general.

1) The purpose of case laws is always to give a real-life example of a principle of justice. Case laws are not rigid. Remember, Hebrew is more a visual language than it is an analytic language. It is great for story telling or writing narratives. Therefore, case laws often give us a "story" or an example of a principle of justice which can then be applied to other situations in a similar context. Remember, most of these laws would have to be memorized by judges, as well as the people, in order to be applied to the various situations of life. Because of that, they often deal with "worst case scenarios," or often give the maximum penalty for a crime, while not necessarily implying that the maximum penalty must be enforced.

2) The Old Testament has a very high view of civil restitution. The "eye for an eye" principle is used when it comes to restitution. This is not the same as the Code of Hammurabi, as the Old Testament does not, for example, prescribe that one should poke out their neighbors eye if he poked out yours. "Eye for an eye" was a euphemism in the time and place of the Old Testament for equity. When it came to property disputes, the principle was "eye for an eye."

3) Slavery in the Old Testament is a form of civil restitution. It is commonly referred to as "debt-bondage" slavery. If someone had gone into debt, they could pay off their debt by going into slavery for a time (or if they were not able, to sell their son or daughter). In fact, the verses immediately prior to our text state, "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him" (Exodus 21:1,2 NKJV). If slaves were injured by their Master they were to be set free, and paid restitution (Ex. 21:26,27). Lifelong slavery only occurred with POWs and, as the last verse of our text recounts, with those who volunteered for it. Slaves were not to be treated as sub-human, however, their rights were somewhat limited. For example, while an injured slave was to be set free, if they were killed, the text says that their master was just to be "punished," without specifying the death penalty which is the normal penalty for murder (Ex. 21:20). Slavery was a regulated institution, and slaves had a certain amount of rights, but it in no way was meant to be a desirable institution. God did not want to make it look like an easy way out. God's people were to avoid debt (Prov. 11:51; 17:18; 22:7; 22:26,27; 27:13).

So case laws often give us a narrative of "worst case scenario," the Old Testament is strong on civil restitution, and slaves, while protected, were put in a lower social position. How do these principles help us in interpreting Ex. 22:3-6?

First, we must recognize, that the verse immediately prior to our text specifies that slaves were ordinarily only to serve for 6 years. The assumption is that if someone was a slave for life, they volunteered for it, and our text gives instructions on how a husband might do that if he married a woman who had already done that. Clearly, the implication is that the wife had voluntarily made herself a slave prior to their relationship. Keeping point 3) in mind, this meant that she agreed to that social position because, while it took away some of her rights, she saw it as a position providing security. Notice the hypothetical husband himself says that he "loves his master." This is clearly a master who loves his slaves, and takes good care of them. Keeping in mind point 1), clearly the implication is that if the wife was only a slave for a 6 year period, and he was released early, he had to either stay with her, or wait until she was released. That may sound harsh or cruel, but keeping in mind point 2), usually the slave is in debt to their master, and the Mosaic law has a high view of civil restitution. You must pay what you owe, to the full. However, nowhere in the text does it say the master has to follow these rules. If they desired to be merciful and let them go together, they were at liberty to do so. Compared to other ancient near-east slave codes, the Hebrews Scriptures are far above the norm, and protect from chattel slavery and other inhumane abuses. The law is just.

This text does not condone breaking up of slave families, in fact, the first few verses speak against this. The issue here is a "worst case scenario" where a debt-bondage slave marries a voluntary life-long slave. In that case, he can only stay with her if he becomes one as well, because she belongs to her master. Knowing this case law, the debt-bondage slave would have known what he was getting into marrying her. And the implication in the text is that the master is a kind and just one as well.

But that isn't the whole story. You see Christ not only "married" us in our slavery, he also then elevated us to being sons and daughters of God, as he was the Son of the master over the household.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come— In the volume of the book it is written of Me— To do Your will, O God.’” (Heb. 10:5-7)

The book of Hebrews here is actually quoting Psalm 40:6, which in the hebrew literally says, "ears you have dug for me" where the book of Hebrews says "a body you have prepared for me." The image in the Psalm is of a slave becoming a life-long servant through having his ears dug with an awl, just as Exodus 21 prescribes. Hebrews 10 compares Christ's incarnation to this same voluntary servitude. You see, it's as if Christ said, "I love my Father, I love my bride, and I love my children," just as the husband does in Exodus 21. Therefore, Jesus became like one of us, yet without sin. He entered into our sin and servitude, paid for our sins, and provides the infinite work that we owe to God, in order to be with us and redeem us. Exodus 21 ultimately points to Jesus, who is the husband over the Church.

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." (Gal. 4:4-7 NKJV)