Text -- Exodus 21:12-27 (NET)

Personal Injuries

21:12 “Whoever strikes someone so that he dies must surely be put to death. 21:13 But if he does not do it with premeditation, but it happens by accident, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. 21:14 But if a man willfully attacks his neighbor to kill him cunningly, you will take him even from my altar that he may die. 21:15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother must surely be put to death. 21:16 “Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death. 21:17 “Whoever treats his father or his mother disgracefully must surely be put to death. 21:18 “If men fight, and one strikes his neighbor with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed, 21:19 and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person’s loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed. 21:20 “If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished. 21:21 However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss. 21:22 “If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. 21:23 But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 21:26 “If a man strikes the eye of his male servant or his female servant so that he destroys it, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the eye. 21:27 If he knocks out the tooth of his male servant or his female servant, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the tooth.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Exo 21:20

Direction is given what should be done, if a servant died by his master's correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the Negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound, yet if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances.

Wesley: Exo 21:24

The execution of this law is not put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it. But magistrates had an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured.

JFB: Exo 21:23-25

The law which authorized retaliation (a principle acted upon by all primitive people) was a civil one. It was given to regulate the procedure of the public magistrate in determining the amount of compensation in every case of injury, but did not encourage feelings of private revenge. The later Jews, however, mistook it for a moral precept, and were corrected by our Lord (Mat 5:38-42).

Clarke: Exo 21:13

I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee - From the earliest times the nearest akin had a right to revenge the murder of his relation, and as this right was universally acknowledged, no law was ever made on the subject; but as this might be abused, and a person who had killed another accidentally, having had no previous malice against him, might be put to death by the avenger of blood, as the nearest kinsman was termed, therefore God provided the cities of refuge to which the accidental manslayer might flee till the affair was inquired into, and settled by the civil magistrate.

Clarke: Exo 21:14

Thou shalt take him from mine altar - Before the cities of refuge were assigned, the altar of God was the common asylum.

Clarke: Exo 21:15

That smiteth his father, or his mother - As such a case argued peculiar depravity, therefore no mercy was to be shown to the culprit.

Clarke: Exo 21:16

He that stealeth a man - By this law every man-stealer, and every receiver of the stolen person, should lose his life; no matter whether the latter stole the man himself, or gave money to a slave captain or negro-dealer to steal him for him.

Clarke: Exo 21:19

Shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed - This was a wise and excellent institution, and most courts of justice still regulate their decisions on such cases by this Mosaic precept.

Clarke: Exo 21:21

If the slave who had been beaten by his master died under his hand, the master was punished with death - see Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6. But if he survived the beating a day or two the master was not punished, because it might be presumed that the man died through some other cause. And all penal laws should be construed as favourably as possible to the accused.

Clarke: Exo 21:22

And hurt a woman with child - As a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and as every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, therefore any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fruit of her womb might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offense; and as the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder - the person was put to death; Exo 21:23.

Clarke: Exo 21:24

Eye for eye - This is the earliest account we have of the lex talionis , or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter, it constituted a part of the twelve tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the praetor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the canon law, in reference to all calumniators: Calumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat . "If the calumniator fall in the proof of his accusation, let him suffer the same punishment which he wished to have inflicted upon the man whom he falsely accused."Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved, otherwise the lex talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sown the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness.

Clarke: Exo 21:26

If a man smite the eye, etc. - See the following verse.

Clarke: Exo 21:27

If he smite out his - tooth - It was a noble law that obliged the unmerciful slaveholder to set the slave at liberty whose eye or tooth he had knocked out. If this did not teach them humanity, it taught them caution, as one rash blow might have deprived them of all right to the future services of the slave; and thus self-interest obliged them to be cautious and circumspect.

Calvin: Exo 21:12

12.=== He === that smiteth a man, so that he die. This passage, as I have said, more clearly explains the details, and first makes a distinction between voluntary and accidental homicide; for, if a stone or an axe (Deu 19:5.) may have slipped from a man unintentionally, and struck anybody, He would not have it accounted a capital crime. And for this purpose the cities of refuge were given, of which brief mention is here made, and whose rights will be presently more fully spoken of, and where also the mode of distinguishing between design and ignorance will be laid down. But it must be remarked, that Moses declares that accidental homicide, as it is commonly called, does not happen by chance or accident, but according to the will of God, as if He himself led out the person, who is killed, to death. By whatever kind of death, therefore, men are taken away, it is certain that we live or die only at His pleasure; and surely, if not even a sparrow can fall to the ground except by His will, (Mat 10:29,) it would be very absurd that men created in His image should be abandoned to the blind impulses of fortune. Wherefore it must be concluded, as Scripture elsewhere teaches, that the term of each man’s life is appointed, ²⁹ with which another passage corresponds,

“Thou turnest man to destruction, and savest,
Return, ye children of men.” (Psa 90:3.)

It is true, indeed, that whatever has no apparent cause or necessity seems to us to be fortuitous; and thus, whatever, according to nature, might happen otherwise we call accidents, ( contingentia;) yet in the meantime it must be remembered, that what might else incline either way is governed by God’s secret counsel, so that nothing is done without His arrangement and decree. In this way we do not suppose a fate ³⁰ such as the Stoics invented; for it is a different tiling to say that things which of themselves incline to various and doubtful events, are directed by the hand of God whithersoever He will, and to say that necessity governs them in accordance with the perpetual complication of causes, ³¹ and that this happens with God’s connivance; nay, nothing can be more opposite than that God should be drawn and carried away by a fatal motive power, or that He tempers all things as He sees fit.

There is no reason to follow the Jews here in philosophizing more deeply, that none are delivered to death but those in whom God finds cause for it. It is indeed certain, that with God there always exists the best reason for His acts; but it is wrong to elicit from thence that those who by tits guidance meet with death must be guilty of some offense. Nor even if God should take away an innocent man, would it bc lawful to murmur against Him; as if His justice were naught, because it is concealed from us, and indeed incomprehensible.

Calvin: Exo 21:14

14.=== But === if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor. He expresses the same thing in different ways; for although there is a wide difference between slaying a man presumptuously ³² and with guile, yet Moses applies them both to a willful murder; for by guile he means a wicked disposition to injure, and by the word presumptuous he designates a violent assault, when a man in hate wantonly falls upon another. And surely truculence, and violence, and all cruelty is presumptuous, ( superba;) for unless a man despised his brother, he would not assail him as an enemy.

Lest by overlooking murders they should defile the land, God commands that murderers should be torn away even from His altar, whereby He signifies that they are as unworthy of divine as of human aid. For, although the sanctity of the altar might afford an asylum for the protection of those who had transgressed through imprudence, or. error, yet it would have been wrong that impunity for crimes should have been derived from hence; because the sanctuary would have been thus converted into a den of thieves, and religion would have been subjected to gross profanation. Wherefore, although criminals embracing the altar should implore God’s aid, the Law commands them to be torn away from thence to punishment, because it would have been disgraceful to abuse God’s sacred name as affording license for sin. Hence it appears how great was the folly of old in supposing that churches were honored when they were made asylums for the encouragement of evil deeds. This, indeed, was derived from the ordinary custom of the heathen; but it was a foolish imitation thus to mix up God with idols in a spurious worship; although in this respect the Gentiles served their idols more purely and virtuously than the Christians ³³ served God; for they refused the right of asylum to the sacrilegious and impure, so that the temple of the Samothracians was no secure hiding-place even to Perseus, ³⁴ the king of Macedon. Livy records the following words, as having been spoken by a heathen, — “Since, at the commencement of all our sacrifices, those whose hands are not pure are enjoined to retire, will ye suffer your sanctuaries to be contaminated by the blood-stained person of a robber?” Let us, then, be ashamed of polluting our temples under the pretext of reverence for them.

Calvin: Exo 21:15

The commandment is now sanctioned by the denunciation of capital punishment for its violation, yet not so as to comprehend all who have in any respect sinned against their parents, but sufficient to show that the rights of parents are sacred, and not to be violated without the greatest criminality. We know that parricides ⁸ as being the most detestable of all men, were formerly sewn up in a leathern sack and cast into the water; but God proceeds further, when He commands all those to be exterminated who have laid violent hands on their parents ⁹ or addressed them in abusive language. For to smite does not only mean to kill, but refers to any violence, although no wound may have been inflicted. If, then, any one had struck his father or mother with his fist, or with a stick, the punishment of such an act of madness was the same as for murder. And, assuredly, it is an abominable and monstrous thing for a son not to hesitate to assault those from whom he has received his life; nor can it be but that impunity accorded to so foul a crime must straightway produce cruel barbarism. The second law avenges not only violence done to parents, but also, abusive words, which soon proceed to grosser insults and atrocious contempt. Still, if any one should have lightly let drop some slight reproach, as is often the case ill a quarrel, this severe punishment was not to be inflicted upon such, all inconsiderate piece of impertinence: and the word קלל , kalal, from which the participle used by Moses is derived, not only means to reproach, but also to curse, as well as to esteem lightly, and to despise. Whilst, therefore, not every insult, whereby the reverence due to parents was violated, received the punishment of death, still God would have that impious pride, which would subvert the first principles of nature, held in abhorrence. But, inasmuch as it might seem hard that a word, ¹⁰ however unworthy of a dutiful son, should be the cause of death; this objection is met, by what is added by God in Leviticus, “his blood shall be upon him, because he hath cursed his father or mother:” as if He would put a stop to what men might otherwise presume to allege in mitigation of the severity of the punishment.

Calvin: Exo 21:18

18.=== And === if men strive together. The punishment here enacted for wounds and blows is so slight, that it might have served as a provocative to the mischievousness of the ill-disposed. Since the Law of the Twelve Tables only inflicted a fine of twenty-five asses upon a man who had beaten another unjustly, there was a certain Lucius Veratius, ³⁵ who, in mere wanton sport, did not hesitate to box the ears of any one he met, and then to command one of his slaves to pay the amount of the fine, so that it was at length thought better that the law should fall into desuetude, than to suffer it to be thus ridiculously abused. The same thing might easily happen among the Jews, since a person, who had so beaten his neighbor as that he should lie in bed, only had to pay what the unhappy man had expended on his cure. For who would not willingly enjoy the pleasure of knocking down his enemies on this condition, of providing for their subsistence whilst they lay in bed? But we must remember the declaration of Christ, that on account of the perverse nature of the Jews, many things were allowed them “because of the hardness of their hearts,” (Mat 19:8, and Mar 10:5,) amongst which this indulgent provision is to be reckoned. Still God seems to have dealt more leniently with the man who had struck the blow, that He might also chastise the other, who, though of inferior strength, had rashly engaged in the conflict; for both were to be alike punished for the violence unjustly inflicted. Equal lenity seems, therefore, to have been shown to both, since compensation is only made to the person struck for his private loss. ³⁶ But the fact, that God did not carry out the political laws to their perfection, shows that by this leniency He wished to reprove the people’s perverseness, which could not even bear to obey so mild a law. Whenever, therefore, God seems to pardon too easily: and with too much clemency, let us recollect that He designedly deviated from the more perfect rule, because He, had to do with an intractable people.

Calvin: Exo 21:20

20.=== And === if a man smite his servant. Although in civil matters there was a wide distinction between slaves and free-men, still, that God may show how dear and precious men’s lives are to Him, He has no respect to persons with regard to murder; but avenges the death of a slave and a free-man in the same way, if he should die immediately of his wound. Indeed, it was a proof of gross barbarism amongst the Romans and other nations, to give to masters the power of life and death; for men are bound together by a more sacred tie, than that it should be permitted to a master to kill with impunity his wretched slave; nor are some men so set over others, as that they should exercise tyranny, or robbery, neither does reason permit that any private individual should usurp to himself the power of the sword. But, although unjust cruelty was not prohibited, as it should have been, by the laws of Rome, yet they ³⁷ confessed that slaves should be used like hired servants. The exception, which immediately follows, does not seem very consistent, for, if the slave should die after some time, the penalty of murder is remitted; whereas it would often be preferable to die at once of a single wound, than to perish by a lingering illness; and it might happen that the slave should be so bruised and maimed by blows, as to die some time afterwards. In this ease, the cruelty of the master would be surely greater than if he had committed the murder under the impulse of burning anger: wherefore the enactment appears to be a very unjust one. But it must be remarked, that the murder of those slaves, who had been obliged to take to their bed from their wounds, was not unpunished. Whence we gather, that it was not allowable for cruel and truculent masters to wound their slaves severely; and this is what the words expressly imply, for the smiter is only exempted from punishment when he shall have so restrained himself as that the marks of his cruelty should not appear. For that the slaves should “stand for one or two days,” ³⁸ is equivalent to saying, that they were perfect and sound in all their members; but if a wound had been inflicted, or there was any mutilation, the smiter was guilty of murder. None, therefore, is absolved but he who only meant to chastise his slave; and where no injury appears, it is probable that there was no intention to kill him. Whilst, then, this law prohibits bloodthirsty assaults, it by no means gives greater license to murder. The reason, which is added, must be restricted to the private loss; because a murderer would never be absolved on the pretext that he had purchased his slave with money, since the life of a man cannot be so estimated.

Calvin: Exo 21:22

22.=== If === men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death ³⁹ only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, ( homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother. Besides, it would be by no means reasonable that a father should sell for a set sum the life of his son or daughter. Wherefore this, in my opinion, is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the wound abortively, or soon after its birth. But, since it could not fail but that premature confinement would weaken both the mother and her offspring, the husband is allowed to demand before the judges a money-payment, at their discretion, in compensation for his loss; for although God’s command is only that the money should be paid before the judges, ⁴⁰ still He thus appoints them to settle the amount as arbitrators, if the husband should chance to be too exorbitant. We plainly perceive, by the repetition of the lex talionis, that a just proportion is to be observed, and that the amount of punishment is to be equally regulated, whether as to a tooth, or an eye, or life itself, so that the compensation should correspond with the injury done; and therefore (what is first said of the life ⁴¹) is correctly applied also to the several parts, so that he who has plucked out his brother’s eye, or cut off his hand, or broken his leg, should lose his own eye, or hand, or leg. In fine, for the purpose of preventing all violence, a compensation is to be paid in proportion to the injury. But although God commands punishment to be inflicted on the guilty, still, if a man be injured, he ought not to seek for vengeance; for God does not contradict Himself, who so often exhorts His children not only to endure injuries patiently, but even to overcome evil with good. The murderer is to be punished, or he who has maimed a member of his brother; but it is not therefore lawful, if you have unjustly suffered violence, to indulge in wrath or hatred, so as to render evil for evil. Since this error was rife among the Jews, our Lord refutes it, and teaches that the punishment, which is publicly awarded to the wrong-doer, is not subservient to every man’s private passion, so that he who is offended should make haste to retaliate. (Mat 5:38.) Nor indeed are these words addressed to them in order to inflame or excite the desire of vengeance, but all violence is restrained by the fear of punishment.

Calvin: Exo 21:26

26.=== And === if a man smite the eye. Since, in the sight of God, there is neither slave nor free-man, it is clear that he sins as greatly who smites a slave, as if he had struck a free-man. Still, a distinction is made as regards the civil law and human justice, especially if any one have inflicted a wound on his own slave. For here a tooth for a tooth, or an eye for an eye, is not required, but the superiority, which he has improperly abused, is taken from the master; and in compensation for the injury, liberty, which is almost half their life, is given to the male or female slave. Thus, in consideration that it was his slave, t. he master is treated more leniently, when the severity of the punishment is thus mitigated; whilst, in compensation for his dislocation or fracture, the slave receives what is more advantageous to him, viz., that, being set free, he should not be exposed to another’s cruelty.

TSK: Exo 21:12

Exo 20:13; Gen 9:6; Lev 24:17; Num 35:16-24, Num 35:30, Num 35:31; Deu 19:11-13; 2Sa 12:13; Mat 26:52

TSK: Exo 21:13

lie not : Num 35:11, Num 35:22; Deu 19:4-6, Deu 19:11; Mic 7:2

God : 1Sa 24:4, 1Sa 24:10, 1Sa 24:18; 2Sa 16:10; Isa 10:7

I will appoint : Num 35:11; Deu 4:41-43, Deu 19:1-3, Deu 19:9; Jos 20:2-9

TSK: Exo 21:14

presumptuously : Num 15:30, Num 15:31; Deu 1:43, Deu 17:12, Deu 17:13, Deu 18:22, Deu 19:11-13; 1Ki 2:29-34; Psa 19:13; Heb 10:26; 2Pe 2:10

slay : Num 35:20, Num 35:21; Deu 27:24; 2Sa 3:27, 2Sa 20:9, 2Sa 20:10

take him : 1Ki 1:50, 1Ki 1:51, 1Ki 2:28-34; 2Ki 11:15

TSK: Exo 21:15

To smite either father or mother, in a manner which indicated either contempt or malice, or left marks of violence, was deemed a proof of so ungrateful and unnatural a disposition, that no provocation was admitted as an excuse, but the offence was made capitalcaps1 . ncaps0 ay, he who cursed his father or mother, who uttered imprecations, ill wishes, or revilings, against a parent, was included in the same sense; though few crimes were made capital by the law of Moses. The law of God, as delegated to parents is honoured when they are honoured, and despised when they are despised, and to rebel against the lawful exercise of this authority is rebellion against God. - Rev. T. Scott

Deu 21:18-21, Deu 27:24; Pro 30:11, Pro 30:17; 1Ti 1:9

TSK: Exo 21:16

stealeth : Gen 40:15; Deu 24:7; 1Ti 1:10; Rev 18:12

selleth him : Gen 37:28

found in : Exo 22:4

TSK: Exo 21:17

curseth : or, revilteth, Lev 20:9; Deu 27:16; Pro 20:20, Pro 30:11, Pro 30:17; Mat 15:3-6; Mar 7:10, Mar 7:11

TSK: Exo 21:18

men : Exo 21:22, Exo 2:13; Deu 25:11; 2Sa 14:6

another : or, his neighbour

a stone : Exo 21:20; Num 35:16-24

TSK: Exo 21:19

upon his staff : 2Sa 3:29; Zec 8:4

only he shall pay : This was a wise and excellent institution. The same provision is made in the civil law; and most courts of justice still regulate their decisions in such cases by this Mosaic precept.

the loss : Heb. his ceasing

TSK: Exo 21:20

smite : Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27; Deu 19:21; Pro 29:19; Isa 58:3, Isa 58:4

he shall : Gen 9:6; Num 35:30-33

punished : Heb. avenged, Gen 4:15, Gen 4:24; Num 35:19; Rom 13:4

TSK: Exo 21:21

Lev 25:45, Lev 25:46

TSK: Exo 21:22

strive : Exo 21:18

as the judges : Exo 21:30; Deu 16:18, Deu 22:18, Deu 22:19

TSK: Exo 21:23

life for life : Num 35:31

TSK: Exo 21:24

This is the earliest account we have of the ταυτοπαθεια , tautopatheia , Lex Talionis , law of like for like.

Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27; Lev 24:19, Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21; Jdg 1:6, Jdg 1:7; 1Sa 15:33; Mat 5:38-40, Mat 7:2; Luk 6:38; Rev 16:6

TSK: Exo 21:26

Exo 21:20; Deu 16:19; Neh 5:5; Job 31:13-15; Psa 9:12, Psa 10:14, Psa 10:18, Psa 72:12-14; Pro 22:22, Pro 22:23; Eph 6:9; Col 4:1

TSK: Exo 21:27

smite : Exo 21:19

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Exo 21:12

The case of murder of a free man and of a bondman. See Exo 21:20 note. The law was afterward expressly declared to relate also to foreigners, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21-22; compare the marginal references.

Barnes: Exo 21:13-14

There was no place of safety for the guilty murderer, not even the altar of Yahweh. Thus all superstitious notions connected with the right of sanctuary were excluded. Adonijah and Joab 1Ki 1:50; 1Ki 2:28 appear to have vainly trusted that the common feeling would protect them, if they took hold of the horns of the altar on which atonement with blood was made Lev 4:7. But for one who killed a man "at unawares,"that is, without intending to do it, the law afterward appointed places of refuge, Num. 35:6-34; Deu 4:41-43; Deu 19:2-10; Jos 20:2-9. It is very probable that there was some provision answering to the cities of refuge, that may have been based upon old usage, in the camp in the Wilderness.

Barnes: Exo 21:15-16

The following offences were to be punished with death:

Striking a parent, compare Deu 27:16.

Cursing a parent, compare the marginal references.

Kidnapping, whether with a view to retain the person stolen, or to sell him, compare the marginal references.

Barnes: Exo 21:19

Quit - i. e. if one man injured another in a quarrel so as to oblige him to keep his bed, he was free from the liability to a criminal charge (such as might be based upon Exo 21:12): but he was required to compensate the latter for the loss of his time, and for the cost of his healing.

Barnes: Exo 21:20-21

The Jewish authorities appear to be right in referring this law, like those in Exo 21:26-27, Exo 21:32, to foreign slaves (see Lev 25:44-46). The protection here afforded to the life of a slave may seem to us but a slight one; but it is the very earliest trace of such protection in legislation, and it stands in strong and favorable contrast with the old laws of Greece, Rome, and other nations. If the slave survived the castigation a day or two, the master did not become amenable to the law, because the loss of the slave was accounted, under the circumstances, as a punishment.

Barnes: Exo 21:22-25

The rule would seem to refer to a case in which the wife of a man interfered in a quarrel. This law, "the jus talionis,"is elsewhere repeated in substance, compare the marginal references. and Gen 9:6. It has its root in a simple conception of justice, and is found in the laws of many ancient nations. It serves in this place as a maxim for the magistrate in awarding the amount of compensation to be paid for the infliction of personal injury. The sum was to be as nearly as possible the worth in money of the power lost by the injured person. Our Lord quotes Exo 21:24 as representing the form of the law, in order to illustrate the distinction between the letter and the spirit Mat 5:38. The tendency of the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees was to confound the obligations of the conscience with the external requirements of the law. The law, in its place, was still to be "holy and just and good,"Rom 7:12, but its direct purpose was to protect the community, not to guide the heart of the believer, who was not to exact eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but to love his enemies, and to forgive all injuries.

Barnes: Exo 21:26-27

Freedom was the proper equivalent for permanent injury.

Poole: Exo 21:12

He that smiteth a man knowingly and wilfully, as appears by the next verse, neither the friends of the party slain, nor the magistrate, shall give him a pardon, or accept a ransom for him, Num 35:31 .

Poole: Exo 21:13

If it appear that the manslayer did not intend nor desire it, but only it fell out by his heedlessness, or by some casualty, or by some unexpected providence; or, God, and not man, God without the man’ s contrivance or design; for otherwise, in a general sense and way, God delivered Christ into the hands of Judas and the Jews, who did advisedly and maliciously kill him.

A place whither he shall flee i.e. a city or place of refuge, Num 35:11 Deu 19:5 .

Poole: Exo 21:14

If a man come presumptuously i.e. do this proudly, boldly, purposely, and maliciously; for so the word signifies.

From mine altar which not only in the wilderness, but afterward, seems to have been esteemed a place of refuge, 1Ki 1:50 , as it also was among the heathens: but God so far abhors murder, that he will rather venture the pollution of his own altar than the escape of the murderer. See 2Ki 11:15 .

Poole: Exo 21:15

He that smiteth either,

1. So as is before mentioned, Exo 21:12 , so as they die . And to smite sometimes signifies to kill , as Gen 4:15 2Ki 14:5 , compared with 2Ch 25:3 . And this may be here added by way of distinction: q.d. That killing of another man which is punished with death, must be done presumptuously; but the killing of parents, though not done presumptuously, is a capital crime. Or,

2. The mere smiting of them, to wit, wilfully and dangerously. Nor will any think this law too severe, that considers that this is an act full of horrid impiety against God, who hath so expressly and emphatically commanded children to honour their parents; of highest and most unnatural ingratitude, and utterly destructive to human society.

Poole: Exo 21:16

i.e. In the manstealer’ s hand; q.d. though he keep him in his own hands for his own use; for still it is a theft, and he is made that man’ s slave, and it is in his power to sell him to another when he pleaseth, and therefore deserves death.

Poole: Exo 21:17

Or, revileth , to wit, wilfully, maliciously, obstinately, against all admonition, by comparing Deu 21:18 .

Poole: Exo 21:18

With a stone or any other instrument fit for such a mischievous purpose. A usual synecdoche.

Poole: Exo 21:19

The loss of his time i.e. of the profit which he could or commonly did make of his time in the way of his calling.

Cause him to be thoroughly healed i.e. pay the charges of the cure.

Poole: Exo 21:20

His servant namely, a stranger; for an Israelite was to be better used. See Lev 25:39,40 , &c.

With a rod a fit and usual instrument for correction, whereby it is implied, that if he killed him with a sword, or any such weapon, he was to die for it.

Under his hand i.e. whilst the master is correcting him.

He shall be surely punished not with death, for then it would have been said so, as it is before and after; but as the magistrate or judge shall think fit, according to the diversity of circumstances; and therefore no particular punishment is set down.

Poole: Exo 21:21

i.e. His possession bought with his money; and therefore,

1. Had a power to chastise him according to his demerit, which might be very great.

2. Is sufficiently punished with his own loss.

3. May be presumed not to have done this purposely and maliciously.

Poole: Exo 21:22

A woman with child to wit, the wife of the other person, who interposed herself to succour her husband.

No mischief follow neither to the woman nor child; for it is generally so as to reach both, in case the abortive had life in it.

The husband shall impose the fine, and if it be unreasonable, the judges shall have a power to moderate it.

Poole: Exo 21:23

Any mischief either to the mother or to the child, whether it be death, or any maim or mischief.

Who

shall give life for life?

Answ . Not the private person, which would have introduced infinite mischiefs and confusions, but the magistrate; for these laws are given to Moses, and the execution of these things was committed to Moses, and others under him.

Poole: Exo 21:24

This is called the law of retaliation, and from hence the heathen lawgivers took it and put it into their laws. But though this might sometimes be practised in the letter, yet it was not necessarily to be understood and executed so; as may appear,

1. By the impossibility of the just execution of it in many cases, as when a man that had but one eye or hand was to lose the other, which to him was a far greater mischief than what he did to his neighbour, whom he deprived but of one of his eyes or hands. And this is a sure and righteous rule, Punishments may be less, but never should be greater than the fault. And how could a wound be made neither bigger nor less than that which he inflicted?

2. By comparing this with other laws, wherein a compensation is allowed in like cases, as Exo 21:18,30 . And when it is enjoined that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a wilful murderer , Num 35:31 , it seems therein implied that satisfaction may be taken for lesser injuries. And indeed the payment of such a price as the loss of an eye, or hand, or foot required, though it might not so much satisfy the revenge of the party so injured, yet it was really more to his benefit. This law therefore was only minatory, but so as it was literally to be inflicted, except the injuring party would give such satisfaction as the injured person accepted, or the judges determined.

Poole: Exo 21:27

Some confine this to the Israelitish servants, but the text doth not so limit it; and the reason of the law seems to reach to Gentile servants, this being a just punishment to unmerciful masters, (who ought to be merciful to their beasts, much more to such servants,) and a fit recompence to a servant for such a loss. And this law reacheth the loss of any other member, these two being instanced in, the one as the chief, and the other as the meanest, to intimate that other parts of a like or middle nature are included.

Haydock: Exo 21:12

With a will. The Hebrew and Septuagint do not express this, but the context shews it to be necessary. ---

Death, by the sword, as people soliciting idolatry to others were also. Eighteen crimes were punished with lapidation, ten with fire, or melting lead poured down their throats, and six with strangling. The royal tribunals always commanded the criminal's head to be struck off. (Calmet) ---

When the punishment is not defined, stoning must be understood; (Rabbins and Selden, Syned ii. 13.) at least when it is said, his blood be upon him. But when it is only determined that he shall die, Grotius understands he must be strangled, with towels put round the malefactor's neck, while he stands up to the knees in a dunghill; (Drusius) as he does also when he is to be killed with melted lead. Murder was punished by the ancient Greeks with exile. (Plato, &c.) "At that time it was deemed unlawful to inflict a capital punishment upon any, who, however criminal, were still men." (Lartant 2.) But as these crimes became more frequent, God enacts this law of retaliation, blood for blood, Genesis ix. 6. Ten paces from the place of execution, the criminal Hebrew had to confess his sin. (Maimonides) (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 21:13

God. When a person was slain undesignedly, the Providence of God was to be adored in silence, as nothing happens without his permission. (Haydock) See Numbers xxv. 6.

Haydock: Exo 21:14

Altar, if he should flee thither for safety. No asylum was allowed to such murderers. Thus Joab was slain by Solomon, 3 Kings ii. 31. (Menochius)

Haydock: Exo 21:15

Striketh, even though death should not ensue. But some require a grevious wound, and that the son should be twice admonished, Deuteronomy xxi. 18. Parricide seemed a crime so shocking and unnatural, that neither Moses nor Solon made any express law against it.

Haydock: Exo 21:17

Curseth, or speaking injuriously. The Athenians put such in prison.

Haydock: Exo 21:19

Staff, as people in health do, or even as a convalescent. In the mean time the other person was confined, and subjected to the law of retaliation, if the sick man lost either limb or life, ver. 24. (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 21:21

Money, which purchased the slave. Hence, as he will be punished in some degree, and it is not absolutely certain that the slave died of his wounds, his master shall not be put to death. "They are slaves, (says Seneca, ep. 47,) but they are our fellow-slaves. " We have one common origin, and one master over us all, Job xxxi. 13. (Haydock) ---

Many nations tolerated the murder of slaves by their masters. But this was contrary to reason and humanity, (Calmet) and condemned by many of the Roman laws. (Christen.)

Haydock: Exo 21:22

But live herself. So Josephus also reads, Antiquities iv. 8. But Philo and the Septuagint have, "of a child unformed;" and ver. 23, "But if the child be formed, ( exeikonismenon, animated and organized) he shall give soul for soul;" as if all were referred to the child, which the Vulgate explains of the mother. To destroy the life of either was punished with death. "She who first taught the art of expelling the tender fœtus, deserved to perish by his own malice." (Ovid) (Calmet) ---

The precise time when the soul begins to animate the body is so very uncertain, that, after conception, the person who should cause a miscarriage wilfully, would expose himself to incur the guilt of murder. Josephus, contra Apion ii., shews how the Jews abhorred such wickedness. The Romans punished it with death. (Haydock) ---

Homicidii festinatio est prohibere nasci. (Tertullian, apol.) Onkelos says, that "if the mother should not die of the stroke, the offender was to satisfy the husband by paying a fine, to be awarded by the husband, or by the judges: but in case the mother died, he should render life for life:" (Calmet) in which decision he agrees with the Vulgate. (Haydock) ---

The Hebrew is ambiguous, "If death ensue not." (Calmet)

Haydock: Exo 21:24

Eye. "This law tended to restrain, not to encourage, fury and revenge." (St. Augustine, contra Faust. xix. 25.) Some explain it, as if a sum of money could only be required, equivalent to the ransom of an eye, in case a person should be under a necessity of losing or of redeeming it. (Muis; Jonathan) ---

Retaliation was not left to the injured party's discretion. The judge was to decide. Christ enjoins what is more perfect, ordering us to turn the left cheek, when we have received a blow on the right. The canon law inflicts the punishment of retaliation upon the calumniator. (Calmet)

Gill: Exo 21:12

He that smiteth a man, so that he die,.... The Targum of Jonathan is, that smites a man or daughter of Israel with the sword; but there is no need to restrain the words either to persons of any certain nation, nor to any instrument with which a person may be smitten as to die: but any human person, man, woman, or child, of whatsoever nation, and they smitten with anything whatever, that issues in their death:

shall surely be put to death; by the order of the civil magistrate, and by the hand of such as shall be appointed by him; for this is the original law of God, Gen 9:6.

Gill: Exo 21:13

And if a man lie not in wait,.... For the life of another to take it away; or does not do it willingly, as the Septuagint version, does not seek after it, nor design it:

but God delivers him into his hand; it being suffered and ordered by the providence of God, without whose knowledge and will nothing comes to pass, even what may seem to be a contingent thing, or matter of chance, to us; or it is so brought about in providence, that one man falls into the hands of another, and his life is taken away by him, though not purposely and maliciously; because, as Aben Ezra expresses it, for another sin which he has committed, and for which he must die in this way, though not intended by the person the more immediate cause of his death:

then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee; and there be safe both from the avenger of blood, and the civil magistrate; which place, while Israel were in the wilderness, was the camp of the Levites, according to Jarchi, or the altar, as follows; but when they were come to Canaan's land, there were cities of refuge appointed for such persons, that killed a man unawares, to flee to, and where they were safe from private vengeance, and falling a sacrifice to public justice.

Gill: Exo 21:14

But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile,.... That comes with malice in his heart, with wrath in his countenance, in a bold, daring, hostile manner, using all the art, cunning, and contrivance he can, to take away the life of his neighbour; no asylum, no refuge, not anything to screen him from justice is to be allowed him: hence, a messenger of the sanhedrim, or an executioner, one that inflicts the forty stripes, save one, or a physician, or one that chastises his son or scholar, under whose hands persons may die, do not come under this law; for though what they do they may do wilfully, yet not with guile, as Jarchi and others observe, not with an ill design, but for good:

thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die: that being the place which in early times criminals had recourse unto, Joab and others, as well as in later times, to secure them from vengeance; but a man guilty of wilful murder was not to be protected in this way; and the Targum of Jonathan is,"though he is a priest, (the Jerusalem Targum has it, an high priest,) and ministers at mine altar, thou shalt take him from thence, and slay him with the sword,''so Jarchi; but the law refers not to a person ministering in his office at the altar of the Lord, but to one that should flee there for safety, which yet he should not have.

Gill: Exo 21:15

And he that smiteth his father or his mother,.... With his fist, or with a stick, or cane, or such thing, though they died not with the blow, yet it occasioned any wound, or caused a bruise, or the part smitten black and blue, or left any print of the blow; for, as Jarchi says, the party was not guilty, less by smiting there was a bruise, or weal, made, or any mark or scar: but if so it was, then he

shall be surely put to death; the Targum of Jonathan adds, with the suffocation of a napkin; and so Jarchi says with strangling; the manner of which was this, the person was sunk into a dunghill up to his knees, and two persons girt his neck with a napkin or towel until he expired. This crime was made capital, to show the heinousness of it, how detestable it was to God, and in order to deter from it.

Gill: Exo 21:16

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him,.... One of the children of Israel, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and so the Septuagint version: but though this law was given to the Israelites primarily, yet was made for men stealers in general, as the apostle observes, who plainly has reference to it, 1Ti 1:9,

or if he be found in his hand; before the selling of him, as Jarchi notes, since he stole him in order to sell him, he was guilty of death, as follows:

he shall surely be put to death; with strangling, as the same Jewish writer remarks, as on the preceding verse; and Jarchi sets it down as a rule, that all death in the law, simply expressed, is strangling.

Gill: Exo 21:17

And he that curseth his father, or his mother,.... Though he does not smite them with his hand, or with any instrument in it, yet if he smites them with his tongue, reviles and reproaches them, speaks evil of them, wishes dreadful imprecations upon them, curses them by the name explained, as the Targum of Jonathan calls it, by the name Jehovah, wishing the Lord would curse them, or that his curse might light upon them, see Pro 20:20,

shall surely be put to death; or be killed with casting stones on him, as the Targum of Jonathan, or with stoning; so Jarchi, who observes, that wherever it is said, "his blood be upon him", it is meant of stoning, as it is of the man that curses his father or his mother, Lev 20:9 which was after this manner, the place of stoning was two cubits high, to which the malefactor with his hands bound was brought; from whence one of the witnesses against him cast him down headlong, of which, if he did not die, then they took up stones and cast on him, and if he died not through them, then all Israel came and stoned him; that is, the multitude upon the spot: this verse in the Septuagint version follows Exo 21:15, with which it agrees, both respecting the same persons.

Gill: Exo 21:18

And if men strive together,.... Quarrel and fight, and wrestle with and box one another:

and one smite another with a stone; which lying near him he might take up, and in his passion throw it at his antagonist:

or with his fist; with his double fist, as we express it, with his hand closed, that it might come with the greater force, and give the greater blow:

and he die not, but keepeth his bed; does not die with the blow of the stone or fist, yet receives so much damage by it that he is obliged to take to his bed; or, as the Targum of Jerusalem paraphrases it, is cast on the bed sick; or, as the Targum of Jonathan, falls into a disease, as a fever, or the like, through the force of the blow, so that he is confined to his room and to his bed.

Gill: Exo 21:19

If he rise again,.... From his bed, or from his disease, as the last mentioned Targum, recovers again, at least so far as to be able to do what follows:

and walk abroad upon his staff; if he is able to get out of his bed, and especially out of his house, and can be seen walking about in the street or in the field, though he is obliged to make use of a staff, and lean upon it, being yet weak and sickly:

then shall he that smote him be quit; from the judgment of slaying, as the Targum, he shall not be charged with manslaughter, or be found guilty of a capital crime, but discharged from that:

only shall he pay for the loss of his time; as much as he could have got in that time by his labour, from which he was obliged to cease: the Jewish writers add other things also he was to pay for, as the Targum of Jonathan, particularly; as for his pain, and for his loss of any member, and for his shame and disgrace, as well as the physician's fee, which is supposed to be included in the next clause:

and cause him to be thoroughly healed; take care that he has a physician or surgeon, and that the proper medicines be applied, and those continued until he is quite well; all which must be at the expense of the smiter.

Gill: Exo 21:20

And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod,.... A Canaanitish servant or maid, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi; and that only with a rod for the correction of them, and not with a sword or any such destroying weapon, which would seem as though he intended to kill, yet nevertheless:

and he die under his hand; immediately, while he is smiting or beating him or her, on the same day, as the above Targum interprets it:

he shall be surely punished; or condemned to the punishment of being slain with the sword, as the said Targum and Jarchi explain it: this law was made to deter masters from using severity and cruelty towards their servants.

Gill: Exo 21:21

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two,.... And does not die immediately, or the same day, but lives twenty four hours, as the Jewish writers interpret it; so Abendana ^x explains the phrase, "a day or two";"a day which is as two days, and they are twenty four hours from time to time,''that is, from the time he was smitten to the time of his continuance; and so it is elsewhere explained ^y by a day we understand a day, which is like two days, that is, from time to time, the meaning of which is, from a certain time in one day to the same in another:

he shall not be punished; that is, with death:

for he is his money; is bought with his money, and is good as money, and therefore it is a loss sufficient to him to lose him; and it may be reasonably thought he did not smite his servant with an intention to kill him, since he himself is the loser by it.

Gill: Exo 21:22

If men strive,.... Quarrel and fight with one another, which is to be understood of Hebrews, as Aben Ezra observes:

and hurt a woman with child; who being the wife of one of them, and also an Israelitish woman, interposes to part them, or help her husband; but the other, instead of striking his antagonist as he intended, gives her a blow:

so that her fruit depart from her; or, "her children go forth" ^z, out of her womb, as she may have more than one; through the fright of the quarrel, and fear of her husband being hurt, and the blow she received by interposing, might miscarry, or, falling into labour, come before her time, and bring forth her offspring sooner than expected:

and yet no mischief follow: to her, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra restrain it to the woman; and which mischief they interpret of death, as does also the Targum of Onkelos; but it may refer both to the woman and her offspring, and not only to the death of them, but to any hurt or damage to either of them: now though there was none of any sort:

he shall surely be punished; that is, be fined or mulcted for striking the woman, and hastening the childbirth:

according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine; the husband might propose what fine should be paid, and might ask it in court; and if the smiter agreed to it, well and good, but if he judged it an exorbitant demand, he might appeal to the judges; for the husband might not lay what fine he pleased: this, if disputed, was to be decided by the judges, and as they determined it, it was paid; of which Maimonides ^a gives this account:"he that strikes a woman, and her fruit depart, though he did not intend it, is obliged to pay the price of the birth to the husband, and for hurt and pain to the woman; how do they estimate the price of the birth? they consider the woman how well she was before she brought forth, and how well she is after she has brought forth, and they give it to the husband; if the husband be dead, they give it to the heirs; if she is stricken after the death of her husband, they give the price of the birth to the woman.''

Gill: Exo 21:23

And if any mischief follow,.... According as that is, so shall it be done to the smiter: if death follows:

then thou shalt give life for life; if death to the woman, so Jarchi and Aben Ezra interpret it; to which agrees the Targum of Jonathan,"but if there is death in her, then ye shall judge or condemn the life of the murderer for the life of the woman;''about which, Jarchi says, there is a difference among their doctors; some say life properly, absolutely the person himself; others say money, but not life properly; for he that intends to kill one and kills another is acquitted from death, but must pay to the heirs the price (of the person killed) as that person might be sold for in the market: and indeed it seems hard that a person that kills another at unawares should die for it; it is more reasonable that the punishment should in such a case be commuted for something less than life; and that though no satisfaction was to be taken for a wilful murderer, Num 35:31, yet it seems to imply that it might be taken for one that was so without design; as by another law cities of refuge are appointed for the manslayer at unawares: the canons of the Jews, according to Maimonides ^b, run thus;"he that strikes a woman, and she miscarries and dies, although it is done ignorantly; lo, such an one is free from payment, and he does not pay anything, as it is said, "if there is no mischief, &c." the Scripture does not distinguish between what is done ignorantly and presumptuously, in a thing in which there is not death by the sanhedrim, to free him from payment; in what things? when he intends the woman; but if he intends his neighbour and strikes the woman, though she dies, since her death is, without intention, lo, this is a thing in which there is not death by the sanhedrim, and he pays the price of the birth:''the Septuagint version interprets this, not of the woman that miscarries and dies, but of the child that becomes an abortive; if that was not formed and shaped, then only a fine was to be laid, but if it was come to its proper form and shape, and so was animated or quickened, then life was to go for life: and so, according to the Salic laws, he that killed an infant in its mother's womb was to pay 8000 pence, which made two hundred shillings; but if he was the cause of a woman's miscarriage, by blows or otherwise, if the birth was animated, according to the civil law, he was to be punished with death ^c: but one would think, where this is only accidental and not intended, such a punishment is too rigid and severe: however, neither this nor what follows were left to the will of a private person to inflict at his pleasure, but to the civil magistrate; and therefore no ways encourages private revenge, in favour of which it was applied by the Pharisees in Christ's time, whose gloss he refutes, Mat 5:38 nor are the words directed to the offender in this and the following cases, but to Moses, and so to all judges under him and in succession, who were to see these laws put in execution.

Gill: Exo 21:24

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. This is "lex talionis", the law of retaliation, and from whence the Heathens had theirs; but whether this is to be taken strictly and literally, or only for pecuniary mulcts, is a question; Josephus ^d understands it in the former sense, the Jewish writers generally in the latter; and so the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it;"the price of an eye for an eye, &c.''Jarchi on the place observes, that,"he that puts out his neighbour's eye must pay him the price of his eye, according to the price of a servant sold in the market, and so of all the rest; for not taking away of members strictly is meant, as our doctors here interpret it;''in a place he refers to, and to which Aben Ezra agrees; and of the difference and dispute between the Jews concerning this matter; see Gill on Mat 5:38 and indeed, though these laws of retaliation should, according to the letter of them, be attended to as far as they can; yet, in some cases, it seems necessary that they should not be strictly attended to, but some recompence made in another way, and nothing seems more agreeable than a pecuniary one: thus, for instance, this law cannot be literally executed, when one that has never an eye puts out the eye of another, as it is possible that a blind man may; or one that has no teeth may strike out the tooth of another; in such cases eye cannot be given for eye, nor tooth for tooth; and, as Saadiah Gaon ^e observes, if a man should smite the eye of his neighbour, and the third part of the sight of his eye should depart, how will he order it to strike such a stroke as that, without adding or lessening? and if a man that has but one eye, or one hand, or one foot, should damage another man in those parts, and must lose his other eye, or hand, or foot, he would be in a worse case and condition than the man he injured; since he would still have one eye, or hand, or foot; wherefore a like law of Charondas among the Thurians is complained of, since it might be the case, that a man with one eye might have that struck out, and so be utterly deprived of sight; whereas the man that struck it out, though he loses one for it, yet has another, and so not deprived of sight utterly, and therefore thought not to be sufficiently punished; and that it was most correct that he should have both his eyes put out for it: and hence Diodorus Siculus ^f reports of a one-eyed man who lost his eye, that he complained of this law to the people, and advised to have it altered: this "lex talionis" was among the Roman laws of the "twelve tables" ^g.

Gill: Exo 21:25

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. This is to be understood of burning a man's flesh with fire; of wounds made by any means, so that the blood is let out; and of blows, and the prints and marks of them; of stripes and weals where the blood is settled, and the part is turned black and blue: the Targum of Jonathan is, the price of the pain of burning for burning, &c. and indeed, in everyone of these cases, the law could not be well literally executed; for it would be very difficult to burn and wound and mangle a man exactly as he had done another: and as Favorinus ^h objects against the law of the twelve tables of the Romans concerning retaliation, how can a man make a wound in another exactly as long, and as broad, and as deep as that he has given? nor would he suffer a larger to be made, as it was not just it should; and to which may be added, that all constitutions are not alike, and burning and wounding and striping, especially in some parts, might prove mortal, and the person might die thereby; to them the law of retaliation would not be observed, the punishment would be exceeded; and it is much more agreeable to justice and equity that it should be lessened rather than increased; and it may be observed, the law of the twelve tables with the Romans, concerning maiming of members, only took place when the parties could not come to an agreement; and with respect to the Jewish law, Josephus ⁱ himself says, that the man that has his eye put out may receive money for it, if he is willing, which the law allows of.

Gill: Exo 21:26

If a man smite the eye of his servant,.... Give him a blow on the eye in a passion, as a correction for some fault he has committed:

or the eye of his maid, that it perish; strike her on that part in like manner, so that the eye is beaten or drops out, or however loses its sight, and " is blinded", as the Septuagint version; or "corrupts" it ^k, it turns black and blue, and gathers corrupt matter, and becomes a sore eye; yet if the sight is not lost, or corrupts so as to perish, this law does not take place; the Targum of Jonathan, and to Jarchi restrain this to a Canaanitish servant or maid:

he shall let him go free for his eye's sake; or "them", as the Septuagint; his right to them as a servant was hereby forfeited, and he was obliged to give them their freedom, let the time of servitude, that was to come, be what it would. This law was made to deter masters from using their servants with cruelty, since though humanity and goodness would not restrain them from ill usage of them, their own profit and advantage by them might.

Gill: Exo 21:27

And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth,.... Give them such a slap on the face, or a blow on the mouth, as to strike out one of their teeth; this also the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi restrain to a Canaanitish servant or maid:

he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake; both him and her, the servant and the maid; this, though of lesser consequence than the loss of an eye, was punished in the same manner with the loss of the servant man or maid, to make masters careful how they abused their servants in any degree. And though only these parts are expressed, yet Jarchi and Aben Ezra observe, that all other principal members of the body, which they reckon to be twenty four, are included, as the fingers, toes, &c.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Exo 21:12

¹ sn The underlying point of this section remains vital today: The people of God must treat all human life as sacred.

² tn The construction uses a Hiphil participle in construct with the noun for “man” (or person as is understood in a law for the nation): “the one striking [of] a man.” This is a casus pendens (independent nominative absolute); it indicates the condition or action that involves further consequence (GKC 361 §116.w).

³ tn The Hebrew word וָמֵת (vamet) is a Qal perfect with vav consecutive; it means “and he dies” and not “and killed him” (which require another stem). Gesenius notes that this form after a participle is the equivalent of a sentence representing a contingent action (GKC 333 §112.n). The word shows the result of the action in the opening participle. It is therefore a case of murder or manslaughter.

⁴ sn See A. Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977): 105-26.

NET Notes: Exo 21:13

¹ tn Heb “if he does not lie in wait” (NASB similar).

² tn Heb “and God brought into his hand.” The death is unintended, its circumstances outside human control.

NET Notes: Exo 21:14

¹ tn The word עָרְמָה (’ormah) is problematic. It could mean with prior intent, which would be connected with the word in Prov 8:5, 12 which means “understanding” (or “prudence” – fully aware of the way things are). It could be connected also to an Arabic word for “enemy” which would indicate this was done with malice or evil intentions (U. Cassuto, Exodus, 270). The use here seems parallel to the one in Josh 9:4, an instance involving intentionality and clever deception.

NET Notes: Exo 21:15

¹ sn This is the same construction that was used in v. 12, but here there is no mention of the parents’ death. This attack, then, does not lead to their death – if he killed one of them then v. 12 would be the law. S. R. Driver says that the severity of the penalty was in accord with the high view of parents (Exodus, 216).

NET Notes: Exo 21:16

¹ tn Heb “a stealer of a man,” thus “anyone stealing a man.”

² sn The implication is that it would be an Israelite citizen who was kidnapped and sold to a foreign tribe or country (like Joseph). There was always a market for slaves. The crime would be in forcibly taking the individual away from his home and religion and putting him into bondage or death.

³ tn Literally “and he is found in his hand” (KJV and ASV both similar), being not yet sold.

NET Notes: Exo 21:17

¹ tn The form is a Piel participle from קָלַל (qalal), meaning in Qal “be light,” in Piel “treat lightly, curse, revile, declare contemptible, treat shamefully.” (See its use in Lev 19:14; Josh 24:9; Judg 9:26-28; 1 Sam 3:13; 17:43; 2 Sam 16:5-13; Prov 30:10-11; Eccl 7:21-22; 10:20.) It is opposite of “honor” (כָּבֵד, kaved; Qal “be heavy”; Piel “honor,” as in 20:12) and of “bless.” This verse then could refer to any act contrary to the commandment to honor the parents. B. Jacob (Exodus, 640) cites parallels in Sumerian where people were severely punished for publicly disowning their parents. “21:15, 17 taken together evoke the picture of parents who, physically and verbally, are forcibly turned out of the house (cf. Prov. 19:26)” (C. Houtman, Exodus, 3:148).

NET Notes: Exo 21:18

¹ tn Heb “falls to bed.”

NET Notes: Exo 21:19

¹ tn “and then” has been supplied.

² tn The verb is a Hitpael perfect with vav (ו) consecutive; it follows the sequence of the imperfect before it – “if he gets up and walks about.” This is proof of recovery.

³ tn The imperfect tense carries a nuance of obligatory imperfect because this is binding on the one who hit him.

⁴ tn Heb “his”; the referent (the injured person) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁵ tn The word appears to be the infinitive from the verb “to sit” with a meaning of “his sitting down”; some suggest it is from the verb “to rest” with a meaning “cease.” In either case the point in the context must mean compensation is due for the time he was down.

NET Notes: Exo 21:20

¹ tn Heb “so that he”; the words “or she” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

² tn Heb “under his hand.”

³ tn Heb “will be avenged” (how is not specified).

NET Notes: Exo 21:21

¹ tn Heb “if he”; the referent (the servant struck and injured in the previous verse) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Heb “he”; the referent (the owner of the injured servant) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

³ tn This last clause is a free paraphrase of the Hebrew, “for he is his money” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “his property.” It seems that if the slave survives a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him. If he then dies, there is no penalty other than that the owner loses the slave who is his property – he suffers the loss.

NET Notes: Exo 21:22

¹ tn This line has occasioned a good deal of discussion. It may indicate that the child was killed, as in a miscarriage; or it may mean that there was a premature birth. The latter view is taken here because of the way the whole section is written: (1) “her children come out” reflects a birth and not the loss of children, (2) there is no serious damage, and (3) payment is to be set for any remuneration. The word אָסוֹן (’ason) is translated “serious damage.” The word was taken in Mekilta to mean “death.” U. Cassuto says the point of the phrase is that neither the woman or the children that are born die (Exodus, 275). But see among the literature on this: M. G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JETS 20 (1977): 193-201; W. House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25,” WTJ 41 (1978): 108-23; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Exodus XXI 22-25,” VT 27 (1977): 352-60.

² tn The word בִּפְלִלִים (biflilim) means “with arbitrators.” The point then seems to be that the amount of remuneration for damages that was fixed by the husband had to be approved by the courts. S. R. Driver mentions an alternative to this unusual reading presented by Budde, reading בנפלים as “untimely birth” (Exodus, 219). See also E. A. Speiser, “The Stem PLL in Hebrew,” JBL 82 (1963): 301-6.

NET Notes: Exo 21:25

¹ sn The text now introduces the Lex Talionis with cases that were not likely to have applied to the situation of the pregnant woman. See K. Luke, “Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth,” Indian Theological Studies 16 (1979): 326-43.

NET Notes: Exo 21:26

¹ tn The form וְשִׁחֲתָהּ (vÿshikhatah) is the Piel perfect with the vav (ל) consecutive, rendered “and destroys it.” The verb is a strong one, meaning “to ruin, completely destroy.”

² tn Heb “him”; the referent (the male or female servant) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ sn Interestingly, the verb used here for “let him go” is the same verb throughout the first part of the book for “release” of the Israelites from slavery. Here, an Israelite will have to release the injured slave.

NET Notes: Exo 21:27

¹ tn Heb “him”; the referent (the male or female servant) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:13

And if a man lie not in wait, but ^{( l )} God deliver [him] into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

^{( l )} Though a man be killed unawares, yet it is God's providence that it should so be.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:14

But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine ^{( m )} altar, that he may die.

^{( m )} The holiness of the place should not defend the murderer.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:18

And if men strive together, and one smite another with a ^{( n )} stone, or with [his] fist, and he die not, but keepeth [his] bed:

^{( n )} Either far away from him or near.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:19

If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote [him] be ^{( o )} quit: only he shall pay [for] the loss of his time, and shall cause [him] to be thoroughly healed.

^{( o )} By the civil justice.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:21

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not ^{( p )} be punished: for he [is] his money.

^{( p )} By the civil magistrate, but before God he is a murderer.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:22

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no ^{( q )} mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].

^{( q )} Or, "death": of the mother or child in the event she miscarries. Also the death on the unborn infant.

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:24

^{( r )} Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

^{( r )} The execution of this law only belonged to the magistrate, (Mat 5:38).

Geneva Bible: Exo 21:27

And if he smite ^{( s )} out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

^{( s )} So God revenges cruelty in the even the least things.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Exo 21:1-36

1 Laws for men servants.

5 For the servant whose ear is bored.

7 For women servants.

12 For manslaughter.

16 For stealers of men.

17 For cursers of parents.

18 For smiters.

22 For a hurt by chance.

28 For an ox that gores.

33 For him that is an occasion of harm.

MHCC: Exo 21:12-21

God, who by his providence gives and maintains life, by his law protects it. A wilful murderer shall be taken even from God's altar. But God provided cities of refuge to protect those whose unhappiness it was, and not their fault, to cause the death of another; for such as by accident, when a man is doing a lawful act, without intent of hurt, happens to kill another. Let children hear the sentence of God's word upon the ungrateful and disobedient; and remember that God will certainly requite it, if they have ever cursed their parents, even in their hearts, or have lifted up their hands against them, except they repent, and flee for refuge to the Saviour. And let parents hence learn to be very careful in training up their children, setting them a good example, especially in the government of their passions, and in praying for them; taking heed not to provoke them to wrath. Through poverty the Israelites sometimes sold themselves or their children; magistrates sold some persons for their crimes, and creditors were in some cases allowed to sell their debtors who could not pay. But " man-stealing," the object of which is to force another into slavery, is ranked in the New Testament with the greatest crimes. Care is here taken, that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not follow. The gospel teaches masters to forbear, and to moderate threatenings, Eph 6:9, considering with Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13, Job 31:14.

MHCC: Exo 21:22-36

The cases here mentioned give rules of justice then, and still in use, for deciding similar matters. We are taught by these laws, that we must be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly. If we have done wrong, we must be very willing to make it good, and be desirous that nobody may lose by us.

Matthew Henry: Exo 21:12-21

Here is, I. A law concerning murder. He had lately said, Thou shalt not kill; here he provides, 1. For the punishing of wilful murder (Exo 21:12): He that smiteth a man, whether upon a sudden passion or in malice prepense, so that he die, the government must take care that the murderer be put to death, according to that ancient law (Gen 9:6), Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. God, who by his providence gives and maintains life, thus by his law protects it; so that mercy shown to a wilful murderer is real cruelty to all mankind besides: such a one, God here says, shall be taken even from his altar (Exo 21:14), to which he might flee for protection; and, if God will not shelter him, let him flee to the pit, and let no man stay him. 2. For the relief of such as killed by accident, per infortunium - by misfortune, or chance-medley, as our law expresses it, when a man, in doing a lawful act, without intent of hurt to any, happens to kill another, or, as it is here described, God delivers him into his hand; for nothing comes to pass by chance; what seems to us purely casual is ordered by the divine Providence, for wise and holy ends secret to us. In this case God provided cities of refuge for the protection of those whose infelicity it was, but not their fault, to occasion the death of another, Exo 21:13. With us, who know no avengers of blood but the magistrates, the law itself is a sufficient sanctuary for those whose minds are innocent, though their hands are guilty, and there needs no other.

II. Concerning rebellious children. It is here made a capital crime, to be punished with death, for children either, 1. To strike their parents (Exo 21:15) so as either to draw blood or to make the place struck black and blue. Or, 2. To curse their parents (Exo 21:17), if they profaned any name of God in doing it, as the rabbies say. Note, The undutiful behaviour of children towards their parents is a very great provocation to God our common Father; and, if men do not punish it, he will. Those are perfectly lost to all virtue, and abandoned to all wickedness, that have broken through the bonds of filial reverence and duty to such a degree as in word or action to abuse their own parents. What yoke will those bear that have shaken off this? Let children take heed of entertaining in their minds any such thought or passions towards their parents as savour of undutifulness and contempt; for the righteous God searches the heart.

III. Here is a law against man-stealing (Exo 21:16): He that steals a man (that is, a person, man, woman, or child), with design to sell him to the Gentiles (for no Israelite would buy him), was adjudged to death by this statute, which is ratified by the apostle (1Ti 1:10), where men-stealers are reckoned among those wicked ones against whom laws must be made by Christian princes.

IV. Care is here taken that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not ensue, Exo 21:18, Exo 21:19. He that did the hurt must be accountable for damages, and pay, not only for the cure, but for the loss of time, to which the Jews add that he must likewise give some recompence both for the pain and for the blemish, if there were any.

V. Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master's correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, Exo 21:20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, Exo 21:21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master's reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13-15.

Matthew Henry: Exo 21:22-36

Observe here,

I. The particular care which the law took of women with child, that no hurt should be done them which might occasion their mis-carrying. The law of nature obliges us to be very tender in that case, lest the tree and fruit be destroyed together, Exo 21:22, Exo 21:23. Women with child, who are thus taken under the special protection of the law of God, if they live in his fear, may still believe themselves under the special protection of the providence of God, and hope that they shall be saved in child-bearing. On this occasion comes in that general law of retaliation which our Saviour refers to, Mat 5:38, An eye for an eye. Now, 1. The execution of this law is not hereby put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion, and make men like the fishes of the sea. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it, in opposition to which our Saviour commands us to forgive injuries, and not to meditate revenge, Mat 5:39. 2. God often executes it in the course of his providence, making the punishment, in many cases, to answer to the sin, as Jdg 1:7; Isa 33:1; Hab 2:13; Mat 26:52. 3. Magistrates ought to have an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured. Consideration must be had of the nature, quality, and degree of the wrong done, that reparation may be made to the party injured, and others deterred from doing the like; either an eye shall go for an eye, or the forfeited eye shall be redeemed by a sum of money. Note, He that does wrong must expect one way or other to receive according to the wrong he has done, Col 3:25. God sometimes brings men's violent dealings upon their own heads (Psa 7:16); and magistrates are in this the ministers of the justice, that they are avengers (Rom 13:4), and they shall not bear the sword in vain.

II. The care God took of servants. If their masters maimed them, though it was only striking out a tooth, that should be their discharge, Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27. This was intended, 1. To prevent their being abused; masters would be careful not to offer them any violence, lest they should lose their service. 2. To comfort them if they were abused; the loss of a limb should be the gaining of their liberty, which would do something towards balancing both the pain and disgrace they underwent. Nay,

III. Does God take care for oxen? Yes, it appears by the following laws in this chapter that he does, for our sakes, 1Co 9:9, 1Co 9:10. The Israelites are here directed what to do,

1. In case of hurt done by oxen, or any other brute-creature; for the law, doubtless, was designed to extend to all parallel cases. (1.) As an instance of God's care of the life of man (though forfeited a thousand times into the hands of divine justice), and in token of his detestation of the sin of murder. If an ox killed any man, woman, or child, the ox was to be stoned (Exo 21:28); and, because the greatest honour of the inferior creatures is to be serviceable to man, the criminal is denied that honour: his flesh shall not be eaten. Thus God would keep up in the minds of his people a rooted abhorrence of the sin of murder and every thing that was barbarous. (2.) To make men careful that none of their cattle might do hurt, but that, by all means possible, mischief might be prevented. If the owner of the beast knew that he was mischievous, he must answer for the hurt done, and, according as the circumstances of the case proved him to be more or less accessory, he must either be put to death or ransom his life with a sum of money, Exo 21:29-32. Some of our ancient books make this felony, by the common law of England, and give this reason, "The owner, by suffering his beast to go at liberty when he knew it to be mischievous, shows that he was very willing that hurt should be done."Note, It is not enough for us not to do mischief ourselves, but we must take care that no mischief be done by those whom it is in our power to restrain, whether man or beast.

2. In case of hurt done to oxen, or other cattle. (1.) If they fall into a pit, and perish there, he that opened the pit must make good the loss, Exo 21:33, Exo 21:34. Note, We must take heed not only of doing that which will be hurtful, but of doing that which may be so. It is not enough not to design and devise mischief, but we must contrive to prevent mischief, else we become accessory to our neighbours' damage. Mischief done in malice is the great transgression; but mischief done through negligence, and for want of due care and consideration, is not without fault, but ought to be reflected upon with great regret, according as the degree of the mischief is: especially we must be careful that we do nothing to make ourselves accessory to the sins of others, by laying an occasion of offence in our brother's way, Rom 14:13. (2.) If cattle fight, and one kill another, the owners shall equally share in the loss, Exo 21:35. Only if the beast that had done the harm was known to the owner to have been mischievous he shall answer for the damage, because he ought either to have killed him or kept him up, Exo 21:36. The determinations of these cases carry with them the evidence of their own equity, and give such rules of justice as were then, and are still, in use, for the decision of similar controversies that arise between man and man. But I conjecture that these cases might be specified, rather than others (though some of them seem minute), because they were then cases in fact actually depending before Moses; for in the wilderness where they lay closely encamped, and had their flocks and herds among them, such mischiefs as these last mentioned were likely enough to occur. That which we are taught by these laws is that we should be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly; and that, if we have done wrong, we must be very willing to make satisfaction, and desirous that nobody may lose by us.

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 21:12-17

Still higher than personal liberty, however, is life itself, the right of existence and personality; and the infliction of injury upon this was not only prohibited, but to be followed by punishment corresponding to the crime. The principle of retribution, jus talionis , which is the only one that embodies the idea of justice, lies at the foundation of these threats.

Exo 21:12-13

A death-blow was to be punished with death (cf. Gen 9:6; Lev 24:17). " He that smiteth a man and (so that) he die (whether on the spot or directly afterwards did not matter), he shall be put to death ."This general rule is still further defined by a distinction being drawn between accidental and intentional killing. " But whoever has not lain in wait (for another's life), and God has caused it to come to his hand "(to kill the other); i.e., not only if he did not intend to kill him, but did not even cherish the intention of smiting him, or of doing him harm from hatred and enmity (Num 35:16-23; Deu 19:4-5), and therefore did so quite unawares, according to a dispensation of God, which is generally called an accident because it is above our comprehension. For such a man God would appoint places of refuge, where he should be protected against the avenger of blood. (On this point, see Num 35:9.).

Exo 21:14-17

"But he who acts presumptuously against his neighbour, to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from Mine altar that he may die." These words are not to be understood as meaning, that only intentional and treacherous killing was to be punished with death; but, without restricting the general rule in Exo 21:12, they are to be interpreted from their antithesis to Exo 21:13, as signifying that even the altar of Jehovah was not to protect a man who had committed intentional murder, and carried out his purpose with treachery. (More on this point at Num 35:16.) By this regulation, the idea, which was common to the Hebrews and many other nations, that the altar as God's abode afforded protection to any life that was in danger from men, was brought back to the true measure of its validity, and the place of expiation for sins of weakness (cf. Lev 4:2; Lev 5:15, Lev 5:18; Num 15:27-31) was prevented from being abused by being made a place of refuge for criminals who were deserving of death. Maltreatment of a father and mother through striking (Exo 21:15), man-stealing (Exo 21:16), and cursing parents (Exo 21:17, cf. Lev 20:9), were all to be placed on a par with murder, and punished in the same way. By the " smiting "( הכּה ) of parents we are not to understand smiting to death, for in that case ומת would be added as in Exo 21:12, but any kind of maltreatment. The murder of parents is not mentioned at all, as not likely to occur and hardly conceivable. The cursing ( קלּל as in Gen 12:3) of parents is placed on a par with smiting, because it proceeds from the same disposition; and both were to be punished with death, because the majesty of God was violated in the persons of the parents (cf. Exo 20:12). Man-stealing was also no less a crime, being a sin against the dignity of man, and a violation of the image of God. For אישׁ "a man,"we find in Deu 24:7, נפשׁ "a soul,"by which both man and woman are intended, and the still more definite limitation, "of his brethren of the children of Israel."The crime remained the same whether he had sold him (the stolen man), or whether he was still found in his hand. (For ו - ו as a sign of an alternative in the linking together of short sentences, see Pro 29:9, and Ewald, §361.) This is the rendering adopted by most of the earlier translators, and we get no intelligent sense if we divide the clauses thus: "and sell him so that he is found in his hand."

Keil-Delitzsch: Exo 21:18-32

Fatal blows and the crimes placed on a par with them are now followed in simple order by the laws relating to bodily injuries .

Exo 21:18-19

If in the course of a quarrel one man should hit another with a stone or with his fist, so that, although he did not die, he " lay upon his bed, "i.e., became bedridden; if the person struck should get up again and walk out with his staff, the other would be innocent, he should " only give him his sitting and have him cured, "i.e., compensate him for his loss of time and the cost of recovery. This certainly implies, on the one hand, that if the man died upon his bed, the injury was to be punished with death, according to Exo 21:12; and on the other hand, that if he died after getting up and going out, no further punishment was to be inflicted for the injury done.

Exo 21:20-21

The case was different with regard to a slave. The master had always the right to punish or "chasten"him with a stick (Pro 10:13; Pro 13:24); this right was involved in the paternal authority of the master over the servants in his possession. The law was therefore confined to the abuse of this authority in outbursts of passion, in which case, " if the servant or the maid should die under his hand (i.e., under his blows), he was to be punished "( ינּקם נקם : "vengeance shall surely be taken"). But in what the נקם was to consist is not explained; certainly not in slaying by the sword, as the Jewish commentators maintain. The lawgiver would have expressed this by יוּמת מות . No doubt it was left to the authorities to determine this according to the circumstances. The law in Exo 21:12 could hardly be applied to a case of this description, although it was afterwards extended to foreigners as well as natives (Lev 24:21-22), for the simple reason, that it is hardly conceivable that a master would intentionally kill his slave, who was his possession and money. How far the lawgiver was from presupposing any such intention here, is evident from the law which follows in Exo 21:21, "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two (i.e., remain alive), it shall not be avenged, for he is his money."By the continuance of his life, if only for a day or two, it would become perfectly evident that the master did not wish to kill his servant; and if nevertheless he died after this, the loss of the slave was punishment enough for the master. There is no ground whatever for restricting this regulation, as the Rabbins do, to slaves who were not of Hebrew extraction.

Exo 21:22-25

If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born,

(Note: The words ילדיה ויצאוּare rendered by the lxx καὶ ἐξέλθη τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆς μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον and the corresponding clause יהיה אסון ואםby ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ᾖ ; consequently the translators have understood the words as meaning that the fruit, the premature birth of which was caused by the blow, if not yet developed into a human form, was not to be regarded as in any sense a human being, so that the giver of the blow was only required to pay a pecuniary compensation, - as Philo expresses it, "on account of the injury done to the woman, and because he prevented nature, which forms and shapes a man into the most beautiful being, from bringing him forth alive."But the arbitrary character of this explanation is apparent at once; for ילדonly denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form. In a manner no less arbitrary אסוןhas been rendered by Onkelos and the Rabbins מותא, death, and the clause is made to refer to the death of the mother alone, in opposition to the penal sentence in Exo 21:23, Exo 21:24, which not only demands life for life, but eye for eye, etc., and therefore presupposes not death alone, but injury done to particular members. The omission of להּ, also, apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to injury done to the woman alone.)

a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it בּפללים by (by an appeal to) arbitrators. A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life. (For יצא roF( to go out of the womb, see Gen 25:25-26.) The plural ילדיה is employed for the purpose of speaking indefinitely, because there might possibly be more than one child in the womb. " But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye,...wound for wound: "thus perfect retribution was to be made.

Exo 21:26-27

But the lex talionis applied to the free Israelite only, not to slaves. In the case of the latter, if the master struck out an eye and destroyed it, i.e., blinded him with the blow, or struck out a tooth, he was to let him go free, as a compensation for the loss of the member. Eye and tooth are individual examples selected to denote all the members, from the most important and indispensable down to the very least.

Exo 21:28-30

The life of man is also protected against injury from cattle (cf. Gen 9:5). " If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; "because, as the stoning already shows, it was laden with the guilt of murder, and therefore had become unclean (cf. Num 35:33). The master or owner of the ox was innocent, sc., if his ox had not bee known to do so before. But if this were the case, " if his master have been warned ( בּבעליו הוּעד , lit., testimony laid against its master), and notwithstanding this he have not kept it in, "then the master was to be put to death, because through his carelessness in keeping the ox he had caused the death, and therefore shared the guilt. As this guilt, however, had not been incurred through an intentional crime, but had arisen simply from carelessness, he was allowed to redeem his forfeited life by the payment of expiation money ( כּפר , lit., covering, expiation, cf. Exo 30:12), " according to all that was laid upon him, "sc., by the judge.

Exo 21:31-32

The death of a son or a daughter through the goring of an ox was also to be treated in the same way; but that of a slave (man-servant or maid-servant) was to be compensated by the payment of thirty shekels of silver (i.e., probably the ordinary price for the redemption of a slave, as the redemption price of a free Israelite was fifty shekels, Lev 27:3) on the part of the owner of the ox; but the ox was to be killed in this case also. There are other ancient nations in whose law books we find laws relating to the punishment of animals for killing or wounding a man, but not one of them had a law which made the owner of the animal responsible as well, for they none of them looked upon human life in its likeness of God.

Constable: Exo 15:22--Lev 1:1

II. THE ADOPTION OF ISRAEL 15:22--40:38

The second major section of Exodus records the events associated with God's adoption of Israel as His chosen people. Having redeemed Israel out of slavery in Egypt He now made the nation His privileged son. Redemption is the end of one journey but the beginning of another.

Constable: Exo 19:1--24:12

B. The establishment of the Mosaic Covenant 19:1-24:11

The Lord had liberated Israel from bondage in Egypt, but now He adopted the nation into a special relationship with Himself.

"Now begins the most sublime section in the whole Book. The theme of this section is supremely significant, playing a role of decisive importance in the history of Israel and of humanity as a whole."³⁰⁶

At Sinai, Israel received the law and the tabernacle. The law expressed the obedience of God's redeemed people, and the tabernacle expressed their worship. Thus the law and the tabernacle deal with the two major expressions of the faith of the people redeemed by the grace and power of God.

The Mosaic Covenant is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic Covenant in the sense that it was a significant intimate agreement between God and Abraham's descendants. By observing it they could achieve their purpose as a nation. This purpose was to experience God's blessing and to be a blessing to all nations of the earth (Gen. 12:2). In contrast to the Abrahamic Covenant Israel had responsibilities to fulfill to obtain God's promised blessings (v. 5). It was, therefore, a conditional covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant--as well as the Davidic and New Covenants that contain expansions of the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant--was unconditional.

A further contrast is this.

"Whereas the Sinaitic covenant was based on an already accomplished act of grace and issued in stringent stipulations, the patriarchal covenant rested only on the divine promise and demanded of the worshipper only his trust (e.g., ch. 15:6)."³⁰⁷

"The covenant with Israel at Sinai is to bring Israel into a position of mediatorial service."³⁰⁸

"The major difference between the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant is that the former was conditional and also was ad interim, that is, it was a covenant for a limited period, beginning with Moses and ending with Christ. . . .

"In contrast to the other covenants, the Mosaic covenant, though it had provisions for grace and forgiveness, nevertheless builds on the idea that obedience to God is necessary for blessing. While this to some extent is true in every dispensation, the Mosaic covenant was basically a works covenant rather than a grace covenant. The works principle, however, was limited to the matter of blessing in this life and was not related at all to the question of salvation for eternity."³⁰⁹

The Mosaic Covenant is the heart of the Pentateuch.

"First, it should be pointed out that the most prominent event and the most far-reaching theme in the Pentateuch, viewed entirely on its own, is the covenant between Yahweh and Israel established at Mount Sinai. . . .

"1) The author of the Pentateuch wants to draw a connecting link between God's original plan of blessing for mankind and his establishment of the covenant with Israel at Sinai. Put simply, the author sees the covenant at Sinai as God's plan to restore his blessing to mankind through the descendants of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; Exod 2:24).

"2) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that the Covenant at Sinai failed to restore God's blessing to mankind because Israel failed to trust God and obey his will.

"3) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that God's promise to restore the blessing would ultimately succeed because God himself would one day give to Israel a heart to trust and obey God (Deut 30:1-10)."³¹⁰

The writer interrupted the narrative with blocks of other explanatory, qualifying, and cultic material in the chapters that follow.³¹¹

Narrative19:1-3a

Other19:3b-9

Narrative19:10-19a

Other19:19b-25

Narrative20:1-21

Other20:22-23:33

Narrative24:1-18

Other25-31

Narrative32-34

Constable: Exo 20:22--24:1

4. The stipulations of the Book of the Covenant 20:22-23:33

Israel's "Bill of Rights" begins here.

"It is worth noting that the stipulations are enfolded within matching frames that stress the exclusivity of Yahweh (Ex. 20:22-23; cf. 23:24-25, 32-33), His presence in specified places (20:24; cf. 23:14-17, 20, 28-31), and a proper protocol and ritual by which He may be approached by His servant people (20:24-26; cf. 23:18-19). It is within the context of a vertical covenant relationship, then, that the horizontal, societal, and interpersonal relationships of the Book of the Covenant take on their ultimate meaning."³⁴⁸

"The section before us has something to say about each of the ten commandments, even if only incidentally."³⁴⁹

Constable: Exo 21:1--23:13

The fundamental rights of the Israelites 21:1-23:12

It is very important to note that various law codes already existed in the ancient Near East before the giving of the Mosaic Covenant. These included laws in the Akkadian civilization located in Mesopotamia in the twentieth century B.C. (e.g., the Laws of Esnunna).³⁵⁴ There were also the laws in the Sumerian civilization, which replaced that of Akkad in the nineteenth century (e.g., the Code of Lipit-Istar).³⁵⁵ Moreover laws in the Babylonian civilization that followed the Sumerian in the eighteenth century (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi)³⁵⁶ existed, as did others. People living in the Near East at the time of the Exodus (fifteenth century) knew these laws and lived by them. The Mosaic Covenant presupposes this body of legal literature. It was not given as a comprehensive legal system to a people living without any laws. Rather it was a series of instructions God gave as Israel's king for His people to govern their behavior in certain specific matters. This fact explains why the Torah (Law of Moses, lit. instruction) does not contain fundamental instruction in many basic areas of law such as monogamy, for example. The instructions in the Law of Moses confirmed certain existing laws, cancelled other laws, and changed still others for the Israelites as the will of God for them.³⁵⁷

Moses revealed the laws that follow analogically (i.e., on the basis of the association of ideas). Analogical thinking has been more characteristic of eastern cultures and rational thinking more typical of western cultures throughout history generally speaking.

Constable: Exo 21:12-17

Homicide 21:12-17

21:12-14 The Torah upheld capital punishment for murder (v. 12), which God commanded of Noah (Gen. 9:6) and people in the Near East practiced from then on. It did not permit capital punishment in the case of manslaughter (unpremeditated murder, v. 13), which the Code of Hammurabi allowed.³⁶³

In the ancient East whoever sought sanctuary in a sacred place was safe from punishment even if he or she had deliberately murdered someone. The Torah removed that protection in the case of murder. God regarded the sanctity of human life greater than the sanctity of a place (v. 4).

21:15-17 The Code of Hammurabi specified that the person who struck his father should have his hands cut off.³⁶⁴ The Torah took a stronger position requiring the death of the person who struck either parent. The reason seems to be that by doing so the striker did not honor his parents but revolted against God's ordained authority over him or her (v. 15; cf. 20:12).

"In the first place age is not a factor in the determining of a delinquent in the ancient Near East: age is never mentioned in the [non-biblical] texts. A minor, for all intents and purposes, was one who was living in his or her parent's house. There he or she has duties and responsibilities which place him directly under the authority of the parent. Responsibility for a minor's behavior rested solely with the parent. Any anti-social act committed by the minor was considered also an offense against the parent who dealt with it accordingly. When proceedings are initiated against a minor, as we shall see, it is the parent, not the courts, who institutes the proceedings. . . .

"In ancient times no provision was made for a minor committing a criminal act, that is, there was no special protection extended to juveniles convicted in criminal cases: the penalty for both an adult and a minor was the same. This represents a striking difference from our judicial system whereby a minor is not held to be as criminally responsible for his conduct as an adult. In effect he is granted a certain amount of protection by the courts, and his sentence is not as severe as an adult's would be in a similar case. It is curious that in the few examples we have of felonies committed by minors in the ancient Near East the opposite situation prevails. A minor receives a more severe sentence than an adult would in a comparable case. . . .

"At this point we should not get too exercised over whether or not these punishments were ever carried out. It is considered today most unlikely that these types of punishments, or talionic punishment in general, were ever put into practice in the ancient Near East.³⁶⁵ What is important here is the severity accorded these offenses in the light of other offenses listed in the same legal corpus. It is most significant that in both cases the assault is against a parent. Assault against another person would subject the minor to a lesser penalty. In Mesopotamian law a minor striking someone other than his parent would not have his hand cut off; depending on his status he would be fined or flogged.³⁶⁶ Likewise, in ancient Israel he would be fined and not subject to the death penalty (Exod. 21:18-19). Thus we have a situation where striking a non-parent makes one subject to regular criminal law, but striking a parent makes one subject to a juvenile delinquent' law which carries a more severe penalty."³⁶⁷

Kidnapping was also a capital offense (v. 16; 20:15; Gen. 37:28) as was cursing (dishonoring) one's parents (v. 17; cf. 20:12). Verse 15 deals with a criminal offense, but verse 17 describes a civil offense (cf. Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16; Prov. 20:20; 30:11). Marcus went on to distinguish this type of offense as follows.

"Turning now to non-criminal acts, civil or status offenses, we review the salient points of the modern definition of a juvenile delinquent as one who is incorrigible, ungovernable, or habitually disobedient. The operative word in most modern definitions is habitual.' An isolated occurrence does not make a child delinquent. Note that the New York State definition speaks of the child as being habitually disobedient,' and the California one terms the delinquent as one who habitually refuses to obey.' We shall see that a number of ancient Near Eastern legal texts make this distinction as well. This is important because it enables us to distinguish what is clearly delinquency from what is only what we call generation gap' disagreements. The ancients were well aware of this generation gap between parents and children."³⁶⁸

All of these crimes worthy of death (in vv. 12-17) were serious in God's eyes. They either violated a basic right of a human being created in God's image or were expressions of rebellion against God's revealed authority in the home, the basic unit of society.

"Life, in essence, is the property of God; the possession of it is leased to human beings for a number of years. This lease can be extended or contracted in accordance with God's will. (Cf. 1 Kings 21:27-29; 2 Kings 20:1-6; Job 1:12-19.) When a man arrogates to himself the right of ownership in the life of human beings and interferes with the right of enjoyment of life by taking it away--that is, killing it--he has violated one of the essential laws of God and therefore forfeits his own right to the possession of life."³⁶⁹

Constable: Exo 21:18-32

Bodily injuries 21:18-32

Moses cited five cases in this section, as was true in the preceding one (vv. 12-17).

21:18-19 The Torah made no distinction in the penalty an aggressor paid because of his intent (vv. 18-28). The inferior Hammurabi Code did by permitting the assailant to pay less damage if he claimed no intent to cause injury.³⁷⁰

21:20-21 As other people, slaves also enjoyed protection from murderers (v. 20; cf. v. 12). However the slave owner likewise experienced protection from execution if his punishment of a slave was not the direct cause of the slave's death. In this case the law regarded the loss of the slave as sufficient punishment of the master (v. 21).

21:22 Manslaughter of an unborn child carried a fine (v. 22). The reason seems to have rested on two assumptions. First, accidental killing is not as serious a crime as deliberate killing. Second, a fetus, though a human life, does not have the same status as a self-sufficient human being.³⁷¹

Pro-abortion advocates frequently appeal to Exodus 21:22 to support their claim that a fetus is not a person and, therefore, abortion is not murder.

"In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is not considered a person. If the fetus were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman--death. Abortion, then, is not murder."³⁷²

However other Scriptures present the fetus as a person, a real human being (Job 10:8-12; 15:14; Ps. 51:5; 58:3; 139:13-16; Eccles. 11:5; Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15). This was the prevailing opinion in the ancient Near East as well.³⁷³

In contrast to other ancient Near Eastern law codes, the Torah made no differentiation on the basis of the woman's social class. It treated all equally. Also only the man who caused the injury was liable, not other members of his family who could suffer punishment for his offense and often did in other ancient Near Eastern societies. Principles explained elsewhere in the Torah determined the penalty the guilty party had to pay.³⁷⁴

21:23-25 God intended the "eye for eye" provision to limit punishment rather than giving free reign to it. The law of retaliation (lex talionis) became common in the ancient Near East. It sought to control the tendency of someone who had only suffered a minor injury to take major revenge. For example, a man might kill the person who beat up his brother (cf. Gen. 4:23). God forbade such excessive vengeance among His people, however, and limited them so that they should only exact equal payment for offenses committed against them and no more.

"This law of the talion, for a long time thought to be a more primitive kind of penalty, the reflection of a barbaric law form, has been shown by more recent comparative studies to be a later development, designed to remedy the inevitable abuses made possible by monetary payment for physical injury."³⁷⁵

"According to Num. xxxv 31 it is only from a willful murderer that it is forbidden to accept ransom [payment in place of punishment]; this implies that in all other instances the taking of a ransom is permitted. . . .

"This being so, the meaning here in our paragraph of the expression life for life [ v. 23] is that the one who hurts the woman accidentally shall be obliged to pay her husband the value of her life if she dies, and of her children if they die."³⁷⁶

21:26-27 In contrast to verse 27, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed that in such a case the offender had to pay the slave's master half the price of the slave.³⁷⁷ If a master blinded his own slave, this code required no penalty. The Torah shows greater concern for the slave. This law would have discouraged masters from physically abusing their slaves.

21:28-32 The Hammurabi Code specified the death of the son of the owner of the ox if the ox killed the son of another man (v. 31).³⁷⁸ The Torah required the owner's life or a ransom (v. 30). Note, too, that verses 31 and 32 value the lives of male and female slaves the same. The value of an adult slave under the Torah was 30 shekels of silver (cf. Matt. 26:15). Under the Code of Hammurabi it was 1/3 of a mina of silver (about 17 shekels).³⁷⁹ The ox also died by stoning. In this way God taught His people that they should view even slaves as created in His image (cf. Gen. 9:5). The goring ox (vv. 28-32) is the typical example of death caused by cattle or domestic animals.

"The fate of the ox gives clear evidence of the theological principle of the subordination of the animal world to human sovereignty. That the fatal goring of one ox by another required only compensation shows the relative insignificance of the animal-to-animal relationship (vv. 35-36)."³⁸⁰

Guzik: Exo 21:1-36

Exodus 21 - Laws To Direct Judges

A. Laws regarding servitude.

1. (1) These are the judgments.

"Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them:

a. Which you shall set before them: These next three chapters present laws establishing precedent for the legal system of Israel, the judges appointed by Moses.

2. (2-4) The general law concerning Hebrew slaves (indentured servants).

"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. 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.

a. If you buy a Hebrew servant: "The first words of God from Sinai had declared that He was Jehovah Who brought them out of slavery. And in this remarkable code, the first person whose rights are dealt with is the slave." (Chadwick)

b. A Hebrew servant: There were four basic ways a Hebrew might become a slave to another Hebrew.

· In extreme poverty, they might sell their liberty (Leviticus 25:39).

· A father might sell his children into servitude (Exodus 21:7).

· In the case of bankruptcy, a man might become servant to his creditors (2 Kings 4:1).

· If a thief had nothing with which to pay proper restitution (Exodus 22:3-4).

c. He shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing: In such cases, the servitude was never obligated to be life-long. The Hebrew servant worked for six years and then was set free. At the end of the six years, went out with what he came in with. If the master provided a wife (and therefore children), the wife and children had to stay with the master or be redeemed.

3. (5-6) The bond-slave: a willing slave for life.

"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.

a. But if the servant plainly says, "I love my master": If, after the six years of servitude, a servant wished to make a life-long commitment to his master - in light of the master's goodness and his blessings for the servant - he could, through this ceremony, make a life-long commitment to his master.

i. This commitment was not motivated by debt or obligation, only by love for the master.

b. His master shall pierce his ear with an awl: In the ceremony, the servant's ear would be pierced - opened - with an awl, in the presence of witnesses - then, he shall serve him for ever.

i. Psalms 40:6 speaks of this ceremony taking place between the Father and the Son, where the Psalmist spoke prophetically for the Messiah: Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; my ears You have opened. Jesus was a perfect bond-slave to the Father (Philippians 2:7).

c. He shall serve him forever: Jesus gave us the right to be called friends instead of servants (John 15:15). Yet the writers of the New Testament found plenty of glory in simply being considered bondservants of Jesus (Romans 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1:1).

i. Pagans had a custom of branding the slave with the name or the sign of the owner. Paul referred to himself as just such a slave in Galatians 6:17: From now on, let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Paul was a slave for life to Jesus.

4. (7-11) The rights of female maid-servants.

"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

a. If a man sells his daughter to be a female slave: The maid-servant was bought, but not really to be a slave, but to be the master's wife or the wife of the master's son one day.

b. He shall let her be redeemed: If her master did not marry her, or decided not to give her to his son, the master was still obligated to respect her rights under God's law.

c. He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights: The idea of women - and women of lower classes - having such rights, respected by God and society was revolutionary in an age when women were usually regarded as property.

B. Laws regarding violence and disability.

1. (12-14) Appropriate punishment for both murder and manslaughter.

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.

a. He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death: The principle for capital punishment goes back to Genesis 9:6: Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man. The right for the state to wield the sword of execution is also stated in the New Testament (Romans 13:3-4).

b. If he did not lie in wait . . . if a man acts with premeditation: The issue is clearly one of premeditation and treachery. God did not place crimes of passion or neglect on the same plane as crimes of premeditation and treachery.

c. You shall take him from My altar, that he may die: The principle of punishing murderers is so important to God that He denied murderers refuge at His altar.

i. God said also that unpunished murderers defiled the land: Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death . . . So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel. (Numbers 35:31, 33-34)

ii. Therefore, there must be no mercy towards the "first-degree" murderer. You shall take him from My altar, that he may die refers to a practice common among many pagan cultures, where a criminal - even a murderer - could find refuge at the altar of a god, and as long as he stayed in the temple, he was given sanctuary. God here says that even if a first-degree murderer comes to His altar, he is to be punished.

d. Then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee: Later (Numbers 35 and Joshua 20) God commanded and Israel made cities of refuge - a place where he may flee - cities where one could flee in a case of manslaughter, and be protected until his case was properly heard.

2. (15-17) Laws concerning murder of a parent.

"And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

a. He who strikes his father or mother: Strikes must be taken in the context of Exodus 21:12, which says He who strikes a man so that he dies. A child who murders, or attempts the murder of a parent, is to receive capital punishment.

b. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death: Kidnapping was also considered a capital offense. In the eyes of God, criminally enslaving a man was not far from murdering him.

c. He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: The idea is of an adult child who threatens their parent. Though this law is severe, it preserves a critical foundation for civilized society: respect between generations.

i. It also has a built-in protection for the rights of the child, according to Deuteronomy 21:18-21. This passage states that the parent did not have the right to carry out this punishment, but they had to bring the accused child before the elders and judges of the city. This meant that the parent - against all contemporary custom - did not have the absolute power of life and death over their children. As a practical matter, the judges of Israel rarely if ever administered the death penalty in such cases, yet the child was held accountable.

ii. Yet the law discouraging conflict between generations is important. The elder generation, as they grow older, is at the mercy of the younger generation. If the younger generation is allowed to carry on open warfare with the older generation, the very foundations of society are shaken.

iii. Unfortunately, modern euthanasia laws allow murder of the older generation by the younger generation - all approved by law.

3. (18-19) Regarding compensation for personal injury.

"If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.

a. If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other: If, because of a conflict, a man is unable to work (confined to his bed) because of an injury received at the hand of another, the one who injured him must pay compensation to the man and his family.

b. If he rises again and walks about outside with his staff: However, if the man can recover from the injury, the guilty party was only required to pay for his medical recovery and for his lost time.

c. And shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed: Though these principles have been abused by the greedy in our modern day, the principles themselves still stand.

4. (20-21) Regarding the beating and death of a servant.

"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

a. So that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished: This shows that in ancient Israel servants could be "murdered." In other cultures, the master was held blameless if he murdered a servant, because the servant was not considered a person.

b. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished: Yet the master not be punished if the servant did not die immediately. Perhaps this is a way to determine intent, with the idea that if the servant lived for several days, it was an indication that the master must not have intended to murder him.

i. If the slave died, the loss of property was thought to be penalty enough to the master.

c. He shall surely be punished . . . he is his property: These laws together paint a picture of the ideas behind slavery in ancient Israel. A servant was a person (who could not be murdered), yet they were also considered the property of the master.

i. Spiritually speaking, we are the property of whom we serve. We are either slaves to Satan or to Jesus Christ.

5. (22-25) Laws of retribution.

"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

a. He shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him: This is an example of a case of retribution, where a pregnant woman is injured in a conflict, and she gives birth prematurely. A penalty is only to be assessed if there is lasting damage.

i. If no lasting damage results, there are no damages awarded. Here, God recognizes that some bad things just happen, and we get over them - and move on.

b. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye: If lasting damage results, retribution is always limited by the eye for an eye principle. This law was meant to block our desire for vengeance, and not given as a license for revenge.

i. Our tendency is to want to do more to the offending party than what they have done to us. This principle can apply to our modern practice of assessing huge punitive damages in lawsuits, and this law presents the principle that only the loss itself is to be compensated.

6. (26-27) The law of retribution as it regards masters and servants.

"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.

a. If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye: The principle of eye for an eye has a different application for servants. The servant, if injured by the master, received something more precious than an eye - his freedom.

b. If he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free: "If this did not teach them humanity, it taught them caution, as one rash blow might have deprived them of all right to the future services of the slave; and this self-interest obliged them to be cautious and circumspect." (Clarke)

C. Laws regarding animal control and damage.

1. (28-32) Determining guilt when an animal kills a human.

"If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

a. The ox shall surely be stoned . . . but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted: This law illustrates the principle of intent and neglect. An owner of a man-killing ox cannot be held guilty if the animal had no history of aggression towards people - yet the animal must die, and the owner is forbidden to profit from the animal or its death (its flesh shall not be eaten).

b. But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past . . . the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death: Yet, if an ox owner has an ox whom he knows to be aggressive, and he fails to control the animal, he shall be held guilty of murder and punished as such.

c. If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life: It seems that if the survivors of the dead man accepted monetary restitution in lieu of the owner's death, this was an acceptable settlement.

d. Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him: The same principles must be applied even if a minor is killed. They were regard as people with rights to respect as well as adults.

e. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver: If a servant was killed under such circumstances, the price of restitution was thirty shekels of silver, which was considered the price of a slave.

i. Significantly, this was the same price Jesus was "sold" for. Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:15).

2. (33-36) More laws giving the principle of negligence and restitution.

"And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his. If one man's ox hurts another's, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead ox they shall also divide. Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own.

a. He shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his: These laws communicate the principle of "you-break-it-you-bought-it." If your negligence resulted in the death of your neighbor's animal, you were obligated to recompense your neighbor.

b. If one man's ox hurts another's, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it: These laws required the investigation and analysis of judges, so that the application of the law took into account findings of intent and negligence. There is a sense in which these are simply amplifications of the principle, "do what is fair."

© 2004 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Exo 21:22

EXODUS 21:22-23 —Does this passage show that unborn children are of less value than adults?

PROBLEM: According to some translations of the Bible, this text teaches that when fighting men cause a woman to have a “miscarriage” they “shall be fined” (v. 22 , RSV ). But, if the fighting men caused the death of the woman, the penalty was capital punishment (v. 23 ). Doesn’t this prove that the unborn was not considered a human being, as the mother was?

SOLUTION: First of all, this is a mistranslation of the verse. The great Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, translated the verse correctly as follows:

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life. ( Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967)

This makes the meaning very clear. It is a strong passage against abortion, affirming that the unborn are of equal value to adult human beings.

Second, the Hebrew word (yatsa ), mistranslated “miscarriage,” actually means to “come forth” or to “give birth” (as NKJV , NIV ). It is the Hebrew word regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for a miscarriage, though it is used of a still birth. But, in this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature, birth.

Third, there is another Hebrew word for miscarriage ( shakol ), and it is not used here. Since this word for miscarriage was available and was not used, but the word for live birth was used, there is no reason to suppose it means anything else than a live birth of a fully human being.

Fourth, the word used for the mother’s offspring here is yeled which means “child.” It is the same word used of babies and young children in the Bible ( Gen. 21:8 ; Ex. 2:3 ). Hence, the unborn is considered just as much a human as a young child is.

Fifth, if any harm happened to either the mother or the child, the same punishment was given, “life for life” (v. 23 ). This demonstrates that the unborn was considered of equal value with the mother.

Sixth, other OT passages teach the full humanity of an unborn child (see comments on Ps. 51:5 and 139:13ff ). The NT affirms the same view (cf. Matt. 1:20 ; Luke 1:41 , 44 ).   

Critics Ask: Exo 21:23

EXODUS 21:22-23 —Does this passage show that unborn children are of less value than adults?

PROBLEM: According to some translations of the Bible, this text teaches that when fighting men cause a woman to have a “miscarriage” they “shall be fined” (v. 22 , RSV ). But, if the fighting men caused the death of the woman, the penalty was capital punishment (v. 23 ). Doesn’t this prove that the unborn was not considered a human being, as the mother was?

SOLUTION: First of all, this is a mistranslation of the verse. The great Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, translated the verse correctly as follows:

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life. ( Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967)

This makes the meaning very clear. It is a strong passage against abortion, affirming that the unborn are of equal value to adult human beings.

Second, the Hebrew word (yatsa ), mistranslated “miscarriage,” actually means to “come forth” or to “give birth” (as NKJV , NIV ). It is the Hebrew word regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for a miscarriage, though it is used of a still birth. But, in this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature, birth.

Third, there is another Hebrew word for miscarriage ( shakol ), and it is not used here. Since this word for miscarriage was available and was not used, but the word for live birth was used, there is no reason to suppose it means anything else than a live birth of a fully human being.

Fourth, the word used for the mother’s offspring here is yeled which means “child.” It is the same word used of babies and young children in the Bible ( Gen. 21:8 ; Ex. 2:3 ). Hence, the unborn is considered just as much a human as a young child is.

Fifth, if any harm happened to either the mother or the child, the same punishment was given, “life for life” (v. 23 ). This demonstrates that the unborn was considered of equal value with the mother.

Sixth, other OT passages teach the full humanity of an unborn child (see comments on Ps. 51:5 and 139:13ff ). The NT affirms the same view (cf. Matt. 1:20 ; Luke 1:41 , 44 ).   

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Exodus (Book Introduction)

EXODUS, a "going forth," derives its name from its being occupied principally with a relation of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and the incidents that immediately preceded as well as followed that memorable migration. Its authorship by Moses is distinctly asserted by himself (Exo 24:4), as well as by our Lord (Mar 12:26; Luk 20:37). Besides, the thorough knowledge it exhibits of the institutions and usages of the ancient Egyptians and the minute geographical details of the journey to Sinai, establish in the clearest manner the authenticity of this book.

JFB: Exodus (Outline)

• INCREASE OF THE ISRAELITES. (Exo. 1:1-22)
• BIRTH AND PRESERVATION OF MOSES. (Exo 2:1-10) there went a man of the house of Levi, &c. Amram was the husband and Jochebed the wife (compare Exo 6:20; Num 26:59). The marriage took place, and two children, Miriam and Aaron, were born some years before the infanticidal edict.
• HIS SYMPATHY WITH THE HEBREWS. (Exo 2:11-25)
• DIVINE APPEARANCE AND COMMISSION TO MOSES. (Exo. 3:1-22)
• MIRACULOUS CHANGE OF THE ROD, &c. (Exo. 4:1-31)
• FIRST INTERVIEW WITH PHARAOH. (Exo. 5:1-23)
• RENEWAL OF THE PROMISE. (Exo 6:1-13)
• THE GENEALOGY OF MOSES. (Exo. 6:14-30)
• SECOND INTERVIEW WITH PHARAOH. (Exo. 7:1-25)
• PLAGUE OF FROGS. (Exo 8:1-15)
• PLAGUE OF LICE. (Exo 8:16-19)
• PLAGUE OF FLIES. (Exo 8:20-32)
• MURRAIN OF BEASTS. (Exo 9:1-7)
• PLAGUE OF BOILS. (Exo 9:8-17)
• PLAGUE OF HAIL. (Exo. 9:18-35)
• PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS. (Exo. 10:1-20)
• PLAGUE OF DARKNESS. (Exo 10:21-29)
• DEATH OF THE FIRST-BORN THREATENED. (Exo 11:1-10)
• THE PASSOVER INSTITUTED. (Exo 12:1-10)
• THE RITE OF THE PASSOVER. (Exo 12:11-14)
• UNLEAVENED BREAD. (Exo. 12:15-51)
• THE FIRST-BORN SANCTIFIED. (Exo 13:1-2)
• MEMORIAL OF THE PASSOVER. (Exo 13:3-10)
• FIRSTLINGS OF BEASTS. (Exo 13:11-16)
• JOURNEY FROM EGYPT. (Exo 13:17-21)
• GOD INSTRUCTS THE ISRAELITES AS TO THEIR JOURNEY. (Exo. 14:1-31)
• SONG OF MOSES. (Exo. 15:1-27)
• MURMURS FOR WANT OF BREAD. (Exo. 16:1-36)
• THE PEOPLE MURMUR FOR WATER. (Exo 17:1-7)
• ATTACK OF AMALEK. (Exo 17:8-16)
• VISIT OF JETHRO. (Exo. 18:1-27)
• ARRIVAL AT SINAI. (Exo. 19:1-25)
• THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. (Exo. 20:1-26)
• LAWS FOR MENSERVANTS. (Exo 21:1-6)
• LAWS FOR MAIDSERVANTS. (Exo. 21:7-36)
• LAWS CONCERNING THEFT. (Exo. 22:1-31)
• LAWS CONCERNING SLANDER, &c. (Exo. 23:1-33)
• DELIVERY OF THE LAW AND COVENANT. (Exo. 24:1-18)
• CONCERNING AN OFFERING. (Exo. 25:1-40)
• TEN CURTAINS. (Exo. 26:1-37)
• ALTAR FOR BURNT OFFERING. (Exo. 27:1-21)
• APPOINTMENT TO THE PRIESTHOOD. (Exo. 28:1-43)
• CONSECRATING THE PRIESTS AND THE ALTAR. (Exo. 29:1-35)
• CONSECRATION OF THE ALTAR. (Exo 29:36-37)
• INSTITUTION OF DAILY SERVICE. (Exo 29:38-46)
• THE ALTAR OF INCENSE. (Exo. 30:1-38)
• BEZALEEL AND AHOLIAB. (Exo. 31:1-18)
• THE GOLDEN CALF. (Exo. 32:1-35)
• THE LORD REFUSES TO GO WITH THE PEOPLE. (Exo. 33:1-23)
• THE TABLES ARE RENEWED. (Exo. 34:1-35)
• CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TABERNACLE. (Exo. 35:1-35)
• OFFERINGS DELIVERED TO THE WORKMEN. (Exo. 36:1-38)
• FURNITURE OF THE TABERNACLE. (Exo. 37:1-29)
• FURNITURE OF THE TABERNACLE. (Exo. 38:1-31)
• GARMENTS OF THE PRIESTS. (Exo. 39:1-43)
• THE TABERNACLE REARED AND ANOINTED. (Exo. 40:1-38)

TSK: Exodus (Book Introduction)

The title of this Book is derived from the Septuagint; in which it is called ΕΞΟΔΟΣ , " Exodus;" or, as it is in the Codex Alexandrinus, ΕΞΟΔΟΣ Αιγυπτου , " the Exodus or departure from Egypt;" but it is called in Hebrew Bibles ואלה שׁמות , Weelleh Shemoth , " these are the names," or merely, שׁמות , Shemoth , " names," from the words with which it commences.

Moses was undoubtedly the author of this Book, which forms a continuation of the preceding, and was evidently written after the promulgation of the law. it embraces the history of about 145 years. Moses, having in the Book of Genesis described the creation of the world, the origin of nations, and the peopling of the earth, details in the Book of Exodus the commencement and nature of the Jewish Church and Polity, which has very properly been termed a Theocracy (Θεοκρατια , from Θεος [Strong’s 2316], God, and κρατεω [Strong’s 2902], to rule), in which Jehovah appears not merely as their Creator and God, but as their King. Hence this and the following books of Moses are not purely historical; but contain not only laws for the regulation of their moral conduct and the rites and ceremonies of their religious worship, but judicial and political laws relating to government and civil life. The stupendous facts connected with these events, may be clearly perceived by consulting the marginal references; and many of the circumstances are confirmed by the testimony of heathen writers. Numenius, a Pythagorean philosopher, mentioned by Eusebius, speaks of the opposition of the magicians, whom he calls Jannes and Jambres, to the miracles of Moses. Though the names of these magicians are not preserved in the Sacred Text, yet tradition had preserved them in the Jewish records, from which St. Paul (2Ti 3:8) undoubtedly quotes. Add to this that many of the notions of the heathen respecting the appearance of the Deity, and their religious institutions and laws, were borrowed from this book; and many of their fables were nothing more than distorted traditions of those events which are here plainly related by Moses.

TSK: Exodus 21 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Exo 21:1, Laws for men servants; Exo 21:5, For the servant whose ear is bored; Exo 21:7, For women servants; Exo 21:12, For manslaughter; Exo 21:16, For stealers of men; Exo 21:17, For cursers of parents; Exo 21:18, For smiters; Exo 21:22, For a hurt by chance; Exo 21:28, For an ox that gores; Exo 21:33, For him that is an occasion of harm.

Poole: Exodus (Book Introduction)

SECOND BOOK OF MOSES CALLED EXODUS.

THE ARGUMENT.

AFTER the death of Joseph, who had sent for his father’ s house into Egypt, the children of Israel exceedingly multiplied, notwithstanding Pharaoh’ s cruel oppressing of them; from under which God, hearing their cry, brought them with a strong hand. Wherefore this book is called by the Greeks EXODUS, i.e. a going forth; containing an historical account of passages for about one hundred and forty years; with the wonderful raising up of Moses, who, together with Aaron, were to be instruments of their deliverance; and accordingly, after the inflicting ten dreadful plagues upon Pharaoh, brought them into the wilderness through the Red Sea, wherein Pharaoh (his heart being hardened under all these plagues) and all his host pursuing of them were drowned; God having first instituted the passover, as an abiding sacrament to bring to their remembrance in after-times this great deliverance.

In their conduct through the wilderness, God gave them the signal mark of his presence in the pillar of a cloud, and the pillar of fire; who, notwithstanding their great and reiterated murmurings, gave them food, both bread and flesh from heaven, and drink out of the rock; and when they were come to Mount Sinai, he there gave them the moral law, beside other both politic and ecclesiastical ordinances. Afterwards, the breaking of the tables being occasioned by the idolatry of the golden calf, God graciously renewed his covenant with them. There being also a tabernacle, and ark, and other things to be made by God’ s command, the bounty of the people, in order to the making and furnishing thereof, is here set down; which, being finished, the tabernacle is anointed, and filled with the glory of God.

Poole: Exodus 21 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 21

Law concerning bond-men or slaves, Exo 21:1-5 . Servants bored through the ear, Exo 21:6 . Ordinances for bond-women, Exo 21:7-11 . Of murderers, Exo 21:12 . Of them that curse their parents, Exo 21:17 . Of strikers, Exo 21:18,19 . Of them that hurt a woman with child, Exo 21:22-25 . Of a master of a family that strikes out an eye or tooth of his man or maid servant, Exo 21:26,27 . Of a pushing ox, Exo 21:29 . Of them that hurt their neighbour’ s ox by digging a pit, Exo 21:33 . Of one ox killing another, Exo 21:35,36 .

Or, the judicial laws , by which thou and the judges before mentioned shall govern thyself and the people in civil and criminal causes.

MHCC: Exodus (Book Introduction)

The Book of Exodus relates the forming of the children of Israel into a church and a nation. We have hitherto seen true religion shown in domestic life, now, we begin to trace its effects upon the concerns of kingdoms and nations. Exodus signifies " the departure;" the chief event therein recorded is the departure of Israel from Egypt and Egyptian bondage; it plainly points out the fulfilling of several promises and prophecies to Abraham respecting his seed, and shadows forth the state of the church, in the wilderness of this world, until her arrival at the heavenly Canaan, an eternal rest.

MHCC: Exodus 21 (Chapter Introduction)

(Exo 21:1-11) Laws respecting servants.

(Exo 21:12-21) Judicial laws.

(Exo 21:22-36) Judicial laws.

Matthew Henry: Exodus (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Second Book of Moses, Called Exodus

Moses (the servant of the Lord in writing for him as well as in acting for him - with the pen of God as well as with the rod of God in his hand) having, in the first book of his history, preserved and transmitted the records of the church, while it existed in private families, comes, in this second book, to give us an account of its growth into a great nation; and, as the former furnishes us with the best economics, so this with the best politics. The beginning of the former book shows us how God formed the world for himself; the beginning of this shows us how he formed Israel for himself, and both show forth his praise, Isa 43:21. There we have the creation of the world in history, here the redemption of the world in type. The Greek translators called this book Exodus (which signifies a departure or going out ) because it begins with the story of the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt. Some allude to the names of this and the foregoing book, and observe that immediately after Genesis, which signifies the beginning or original, follows Exodus, which signifies a departure; for a time to be born is immediately succeeded by a time to die. No sooner have we made our entrance into the world than we must think of making our exit, and going out of the world. When we begin to live we begin to die. The forming of Israel into a people was a new creation. As the earth was, in the beginning, first fetched from under water, and then beautified and replenished, so Israel was first by an almighty power made to emerge out of Egyptian slavery, and then enriched with God's law and tabernacle. This book gives us, I. The accomplishment of the promises made before to Abraham (ch. 1-19), and then, II. The establishment of the ordinances which were afterwards observed by Israel (ch. 20-40). Moses, in this book, begins, like Caesar, to write his own Commentaries; nay, a greater, a far greater, than Caesar is here. But henceforward the penman is himself the hero, and gives us the history of those things of which he was himself an eye and ear-witness, et quorum pars magna fuit - and in which he bore a conspicuous part. There are more types of Christ in this book than perhaps in any other book of the Old Testament; for Moses wrote of him, Joh 5:46. The way of man's reconciliation to God, and coming into covenant and communion with him by a Mediator, is here variously represented; and it is of great use to us for the illustration of the New Testament, now that we have that to assist us in the explication of the Old.

Matthew Henry: Exodus 21 (Chapter Introduction)

The laws recorded in this chapter relate to the fifth and sixth commandments; and though they are not accommodated to our constitution, especially in point of servitude, nor are the penalties annexed binding on us, yet they are of great use for the explanation of the moral law, and the rules of natural justice. Here are several enlargements, I. Upon the fifth commandment, which concerns particular relations. 1. The duty of masters towards their servants, their men-servants (Exo 21:2-6), and the maidservants (Exo 21:7-11). 2. The punishment of disobedient children that strike their parents (Exo 21:15), or curse them (Exo 21:17). II. Upon the sixth commandment, which forbids all violence offered to the person of a man. Here is, 1. Concerning murder (Exo 21:12-14). 2. Man-stealing (Exo 21:16). 3. Assault and battery (Exo 21:18, Exo 21:19). 4. Correcting a servant (Exo 21:20, Exo 21:21). 5. Hurting a woman with child (Exo 21:22, Exo 21:23). 6. The law of retaliation (Exo 21:24, Exo 21:25). 7. Maiming a servant (Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27). 8. An ox goring (Exo 21:28-32). 9. Damage by opening a pit (Exo 21:33, Exo 21:34). 10. Cattle fighting (Exo 21:35, Exo 21:36).

Constable: Exodus (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The Hebrew title of this book (we'elleh shemot) originated from the ancient practice of naming a Bible book after its first word or words. "Now these are the names of" is the translation of the first two Hebrew words.

"The Hebrew title of the Book of Exodus, therefore, was to remind us that Exodus is the sequel to Genesis and that one of its purposes is to continue the history of God's people as well as elaborate further on the great themes so nobly introduced in Genesis."¹

Exodus cannot stand alone. It would not make much sense without Genesis. The very first word of the book, translated "now," is a conjunction that means "and."

The English title "Exodus" is a transliteration of the Greek word exodos from the Septuagint translation meaning "exit," "way out," or "departure." The Septuagint translators gave the book this title because of the major event in it, namely, the Israelites' departure from Egypt.

"The exodus is the most significant historical and theological event of the Old Testament . . ."²

Date and Writer

Moses, who lived from about 1525 to 1405 B.C., wrote Exodus. He could have written it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit any time after the events recorded (after about 1444 B.C.). He may have written it during the year the Israelites camped at the base of Mt. Sinai. He may have done so during the 38-year period of wandering in the wilderness following the Israelites' failure to enter the land from Kadesh Barnea (cf. Num. 13-14; ca. 1443-1405 B.C.). On the other hand he may have written it on the plains of Moab just before his death (cf. 16:35).³

Scope

Exodus embraces about 431 years of history, from the arrival of Jacob and his family in Egypt (ca. 1876 B.C.) to the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness of Sinai (ca. 1445 B.C.). However 1:1-7 is a review of Jacob's family. If we eliminate this section, the narrative resumes the story of the Israelites where Genesis ends, after the death of Joseph. About 364 years elapsed between the death of Joseph and the building of the tabernacle. The bulk of the book (chs. 3-40) deals with only two of these years, the year before and the year after the Exodus from Egypt. The Exodus event is clearly the focus of this book.

The Israelites lived in Egypt 430 years (12:40). Genesis 15:13 has the round number 400 years as the time of Israel's oppression in Egypt.⁴

Purpose

"The purpose of the Book of Exodus is to celebrate God's gracious deliverance of His chosen people Israel from Egyptian slavery to the freedom of covenant relationship and fellowship with Him."⁵

Importance

"No other biblical book surfaces elsewhere in the OT as frequently as the Book of Exodus does; in the NT only the Books of Psalms and Isaiah are cited more, and that for the fairly obvious reasons of liturgy and messianism."⁶

Message⁷

The great contribution of this book is the revelation that Yahweh is the sovereign God who provides deliverance for man from the slavery in which he finds himself.

The major teaching of Exodus is primarily threefold.

1. The sovereignty of God.

2. The salvation of man.

3. The methods by which the sovereign God affects man's salvation.

First, Exodus teaches the sovereignty of God.

In Genesis we learned that the only way we can realize the purpose for which God created us is through faith in a trustworthy God that expresses itself in obedience.

In Exodus we learn that the God with whom we can have a relationship is not only trustworthy but sovereign. This realization should produce within us the double effect of worship and obedience.

Sovereignty is the attribute of God that expresses the fact that Yahweh is the ultimate ruler of the universe. There is no one higher in authority than He. As sovereign, He has all power. Sovereignty does not refer to how God rules, the method by which He governs. In particular, it does not imply that God controls every detail of life immediately (directly). God exercises His sovereignty by allowing human beings certain freedoms. He does not control us like puppets on strings but as a father controls his children. We have limited freedom.

We can see God's sovereignty clearly in His superiority over all the so-called gods of Egypt. He displayed His great power in all of His activity that resulted in the liberation of the Israelites and His adoption of them as His people. Scripture teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. No one has been able to explain this mystery adequately (cf. Job).

Second, Exodus teaches the salvation of man.

In Genesis we saw the need for salvation (i.e., the Fall and the repeated failures of man).

In Exodus, God revealed the method of salvation and explained the consequences of salvation initially.

Exodus teaches that God provides salvation for man. Man does not provide it for himself. It also reveals that man appropriates what God has provided by faith.

Two activities become prominent as major expressions of faith in Exodus: worship and obedience. Worship and obedience are the Godward and the manward expressions of faith respectively.

Worship consists of putting God at the center of life (cf. Rom. 12:1-2). Worship was to characterize the Israelites nationally and personally. God illustrated the importance of placing Him at the center of life by locating the ark of the covenant in the center of the tabernacle. He further did so by placing the tabernacle in the center of the Israelite camp.

Obedience consists of arranging all the parts of life in proper relation to God who is at the center. If something in life does not orient toward God properly, there is disobedience. In this way Exodus deepens the revelation concerning obedience that God has given us in Genesis.

Third, Exodus teaches the methods by which the sovereign God affects man's salvation.

God's method of dealing with the human race generally (outside Israel) was by creating a pattern, namely, the nation of Israel. God created the nation of Israel so that He could demonstrate through Israel for all other nations and peoples to see how glorious it can be to live under God's government. God's election of Israel was not the selection of a pet that God would favor at the expense of all others. It was the construction of a pattern. Israel was to be a demonstration to all the world of how wonderful life can be under the rule of Yahweh (cf. 19:5-6).

God's method of dealing with Israel was by revealing a person, namely, Himself. In many revelations to the Israelites, God sought to deepen their understanding of and appreciation for Himself and His will. The special privilege of receiving the revelation was a blessing to them and should have resulted in their being a blessing to the whole world. Israel was to do this by demonstrating how good it is to live under God's kingship. Some of the most important revelations occur in the following passages: 3:4-16; 6:2-8; 19:3-6; 20:1-7; 24:1, 9-11; 34:5-8; and 40:34-35. They are not all different, but God intended them to have the cumulative effect of deepening the Israelites' concept of God. They came to the people like waves beating on the shore. All the details of the Mosaic Code, which begins in Exodus and continues through Numbers, reinforce the main point of this revelation, which is the character of God.

God's method of dealing with individuals was by providing opportunities, choices.

We can see this most easily in God's dealing with the two major characters in Exodus, Moses and Pharaoh. God's method of dealing with both men was the same, but their responses were different and consequently so were their fates.

Pharaoh was a strong, wise leader who acted wholly by sight rather than by faith in Yahweh. He is typical of people of the world. God's method of dealing with him was to give him opportunities to make the right choices and so experience the blessing of God. Pharaoh chose not to trust God, and his disobedience resulted in personal tragedy for himself and national tragedy for Egypt.

Moses on the other hand was also a strong, wise leader, but he acted by faith rather than by sight (Heb. 11:27). God's method of dealing with him in Exodus was the same. He gave him opportunities to make the right choices and so experience God's blessing. Moses chose to trust and obey God, and his life is a story of personal triumph and national triumph for Israel.

In both cases God patiently worked with these representative individuals and gently encouraged them to do His will. Moses developed into a noble character because he chose to submit to God's government even though he was faulty, failing, and fearful. Pharaoh was a more admirable person in many respects, but he sank into destruction because he chose to refuse to submit to God's government (authoritative rule).

Exodus teaches that individuals are personally responsible under God, and their choices determine their destinies. There is ample New Testament evidence for this in John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31; et al. Divine sovereignty does not negate human responsibility.

If we look at the record of God's activity in Exodus, we see progress. The unbelief of His enemies does not frustrate Him. His ultimate purposes for Israel came to fruition.

However if we look at the record of man's activity in this book, we see failure. Even Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites who trusted God constantly failed. We observed this in the lives of the characters in Genesis as well.

While man constantly falls short of what God requires, human failure does not frustrate God's ultimate purposes. This proves that God is indeed sovereign.

Constable: Exodus (Outline)

Outline

I. The liberation of Israel 1:1-15:21

A. God's preparation of Israel and Moses chs. 1-4

1. The growth of Jacob's family 1:1-7

2. The Israelites' bondage in Egypt 1:8-22

3. Moses' birth and education 2:1-10

4. Moses' flight from Egypt to Midian 2:11-15

5. Moses' life in Midian 2:16-25

6. Moses' call 3:1-4:18

7. Moses' return to Egypt 4:19-31

B. God's demonstrations of His sovereignty chs. 5-11

1. Pharaoh's response to Moses and Aaron's initial request 5:1-6:1

2. Moses and Aaron's equipment as God's messengers 6:2-7:7

3. The attestation of Moses and Aaron's divine mission 7:8-13

4. The first three plagues 7:14-8:19

5. The fourth, fifth, and sixth plagues 8:20-9:12

6. The seventh, eight, and ninth plagues 9:13-10:29

7. The proclamation of the tenth plague ch. 11

C. God's redemption of His people 12:1-13:16

1. The consecration of Israel as the covenant nation 12:1-28

2. The death of the first-born and the release of Israel 12:29-36

3. The exodus of Israel out of Egypt 12:37-42

4. Regulations concerning the Passover 12:43-51

5. The sanctification of the first-born 13:1-16

D. God's completion of Israel's liberation 13:17-15:21

1. The journey from Succoth to Etham 13:17-22

2. Israel's passage through the Red Sea ch. 14

3. Israel's song of deliverance 15:1-21

II. The adoption of Israel 15:22-40:38

A. God's preparatory instruction of Israel 15:22-18:27

1. Events in the wilderness of Shur 15:22-27

2. Quails and manna in the wilderness of Sin ch. 16

3. The lack of water at Rephidim 17:1-7

4. The hostility of the Amalekites 17:18-36

5. The friendliness of Jethro the Midianite ch. 18

B. The establishment of the Mosaic Covenant 19:1-24:11

1. Preparation for the Covenant ch. 19

2. The Ten Commandments 20:1-17

3. The response of the Israelites 20:18-21

4. The stipulations of the Book of the Covenant 20:22-23:33

5. The ratification of the Covenant 24:1-11

C. Directions regarding God's dwelling among His people 24:12-31:18

1. The revelation of these directions 24:12-18

2. Contributions for the construction of the sanctuary 25:1-9

3. The tabernacle furnishings 25:10-41

4. The tabernacle structure ch. 26

5. The tabernacle courtyard 27:1-19

6. The investiture of the priests 27:20-28:43

7. The consecration of the priests 29:1-37

8. The service of the priests 29:38-30:38

9. The builders of the tabernacle 31:1-11

10. The sign of the Sabbath 31:12-18

D. The breaking and renewing of the covenant chs. 32-34

1. The failure of Israel ch. 32

2. The re-establishment of fellowship ch. 33

3. The renewal of the covenant ch. 34

E. The construction and dedication of the objects used in Israel's worship chs. 35-40

1. Preparations for construction 35:1-36:7

2. Execution of the work 36:8-39:43

3. The erection and consecration of the tabernacle ch. 40

In an interesting and original chart of Exodus, Ted Grove suggested the following structural outline of Exodus.⁸

I. Israel's liberation chs. 1-18

A. Israel's affliction (Israel is Egypt's possession) 1:1-2:14

B. Deliverance 2:15-18:27

Ted saw the following chiastic structure in this section.

A Midian: Moses' commission 2:15-4:28

B Enemy: Egypt defeated 4:29-15:21

C Water: bitter to sweet and 12 springs 15:22-27

D Food: manna and quail ch. 16

C' Water: out of rock 17:1-7

B' Enemy: Amalek defeated 17:8-16

A' Midian: Moses accepts wisdom ch. 18

II. Israel's adoption chs. 19-40

A. Covenant delivered 19:1-24:11

B. Sanctuary planned 24:12-31:18

C. Covenant broken ch. 32

D. Covenant renewed chs. 33-34

E. Sanctuary's construction 35:1-40:33

F. Covenant sealed (Israel is God's possession) 40:34-38

Ted also saw a chiasm in this part of the book.

A Covenant delivered 19:1-24:11

B Tabernacle planned 24:12-27:21

C Priestly instructions chs. 28-30

D Craftsmen's direction 31:1-11

E Sabbath instructions 31:12-18

F Covenant broken ch. 32

F' Covenant renewed chs. 33-34

E' Sabbath reminded 35:1-3

D' Craftsmen and construction 35:4-38:31

C' Priests prepared ch. 39

B' Tabernacle completed 40:1-33

A' Covenant sealed 40:34-38

The center of the first chiasm is the manna. The center of the second chiasm is the tablets of the Law. These were the two items God instructed Moses to preserve in the ark of the covenant.

Ted saw the key verse of the book as 34:9.

Constable: Exodus

Exodus

Bibliography

Adams, Dwayne H. "The Building Program that Works (Exodus 25:4--36:7 [31:1-11])." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):82-92.

Aharoni, Yohanan. "Kadesh-Barnea and Mount Sinai." In God's Wilderness: Discoveries in Sinai, pp. 115-70. Edited by B. Rothenberg, Y. Aharoni, and A Hashimshoni. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William Foxwell. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. "Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C." Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954):222-33.

Aldrich, Roy L. "The Mosaic Ten Commandments Compared to Their Restatements in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 118:471 (July-September 1961):251-58.

Alexander, John F. "Sabbath Rest." The Other Side 146 (November 1983):8-9.

Aling, Charles F. "The Biblical City of Ramses." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25:2 (June 1982):129-37.

Allen, Ronald B. "The Bloody Bridegroom' in Exodus 4:24-26." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):259-69.

_____. "The Pillar of the Cloud." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):387-95.

Anati, Emmanuel. "Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):42-57.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):3-25.

_____ "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Moses to David." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):99-115.

_____ A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption." Journal for the Study of Judaism 17:2 (December 1986):153-76.

Baldwin, Joyce G. "The Role of the Ten Commandments." Vox Evangelica 13 (1983):7-18.

Barlow, Robert Andres. "The Passover Seder." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):63-68.

Batto, Bernard F. "Red Sea or Reed Sea?" Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-August 1984):57-63.

Beale, G. K. "An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9." Trinity Journal 5NS:2 (Autumn 1984):129-54.

Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. "Fifteen Years in Sinai." Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-August 1984):28-54.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Bimson, John J. "Redating the Exodus." Biblical Archaeology Review 13:5 (September-October 1986):40-53, 66-68.

_____. Redating the Exodus and the Conquest. JSOT supplement series. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1978.

Blosser, Oliver R. "Did the Pharaoh of the Exodus Drown in the Red Sea?" It's About Time (July 1987), pp. 8-12.

_____ "The Impact of the Ten Plagues and Mosaic Monotheism on the Religion of Akenaton: Part I." It's About Time (July 1987), pp. 3-7.

Bodenheimer, F. S. "The Manna of Sinai." Biblical Archaeologist 10:1 (February 1947):2-6.

Booij, Thijs. "Mountain and Theophany in the Sinai Narrative." Biblica 65:1 (1984):1-26.

Brichto, Herbert Chanan. "The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry." Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983):1-44.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Budge, E. A. W. The Gods of the Egyptians. New York: Dover Press, 1969.

Bunn, John T. "The Ark of the Covenant." Biblical Illustrator 9:4 (Summer 1983):50-53.

Burden, Jasper J. "A Stylistic Analysis of Exodus 15:1-21: Theory and Practice." OTWSA 29 (1986):34-70.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cools; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. Reprinted. Cambridge: University Press, 1928.

Bush, George. Notes on Exodus. 2 vols. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: James and Klock, 1976.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Reprinted. English ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974.

Chirichigno, G. C. "The Narrative Structure of Exod 19-24." Biblia 68:4 (1987):457-79.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Divine Hardening in the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):410-34.

_____. "Does God Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):387-99.

_____. "The Polemic against Baalism in Israel's Early History and Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):267-83.

Chismar, Douglas E. and David A Raush. "Regarding Theonomy: An Essay of Concern." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (September 1984):315-23.

Clapham, Phillip. "In Search of the Exodus." Catastrophism and Ancient History 8:2 (July 1986):97-133.

Clapp, Rodney. "Democracy as Heresy." Christianity Today 31:3 (February 20, 1987):17-23.

Cole, R. Alan. Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

Congdon, Robert N. "Exodus 21:22-25 and the Abortion Debate." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):132-47.

Constable, Thomas L. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

_____ Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. "The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth." In God and Christ: Existence and Province, pp. 1-25. Edited by Robert W. Funk. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

_____ "The Tabernacle." Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):45-68.

Curtis, Edward M. "The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images in the Old Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28:3 (September 1985):277-87.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davis, John J. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971.

Deere, Jack S. "Deuteronomy." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 259-324. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

DeHaan, Martin Ralph. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1943.

Deist, F. E. "Who is to blame: the Pharaoh, Yahweh or circumstance? On human responsibility, and divine ordinance in Exodus 1-14." OTWSA 29(1986):91-110.

Dennett, Edward. Typical Teachings of Genesis. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Dennison, James T., Jr. "The Exodus: Historical Narrative, Prophetic Hope, Gospel Fulfillment." Covenant Seminary Review 8:2 (Fall 1982):1-12.

Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by James Hastings, 1909 ed. S.v. "Tabernacle," by A. R. S. Kennedy.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Dunnam, Maxie D. Exodus. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Dunnett, Dolores E. "Evangelicals and Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33:2 (June 1990):215-25.

Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Dyer, Charles H. "The Date of the Exodus Reexamined." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:559 (July-September 1983):225-43.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Ellison, H. L. Exodus. Daily Study Bible series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.

Encyclopaedia Judica. S.v. "Cuneiform Law," by J. Finkelstein, 16:1505i.

Exum, J. Cheryl. "You Shall Let Every Daughter Live': A Study of Exodus 1:8-2:10." Semeia 28 (1983):63-82.

Fass, David E. "The Molten Calf: Judgment, Motive, and Meaning." Judaism 39:2 (Spring 1990):171-83.

Fawver, Jay D., and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September):270-85.

Fensham, F. C. "Extra-Biblical Material and the Hermeneutics of the Old Testament with Special Reference to the Legal Material of the Covenant Code." OTWSA 20 & 21 (1977 & 78):53-65.

Finegan, Jack. Let My People Go. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1963.

Finkelstein, Israel. "Raider of the Lost Mountain--An Israeli Archaeologist Looks at the Most Recent Attempt to Locate Mt. Sinai." Biblical Archaeology Review 15:4 (July-August 1988):46-50.

Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948; reprint ed., New York: Harper and Row; Harper Torchbooks, 1961.

Franz, Gordon. "Mt. Sinai Is Not Jebel El-Lawz in Saudi Arabia." A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 15, 2001, Colorado Springs, Colo.

Free, Joseph P. Archaeology and Bible History. 5th ed. revised. Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1956.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. "The Sabbath Controversy." Biblical Research Monthly 49:4 (July-August 1984):14-16.

Gardner, Joseph L., ed. Reader's Digest Atlas of the Bible. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader's Digest Association, 1985.

Gevirtz, Stanley. "Heret, in the Manufacture of the Golden Calf." Biblica 65 (1984):377-81.

Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.

Gispen, William H. Exodus. Translated by Ed van der Maas. Bible Student's Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Gnuse, Robert. "Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel's Vision of Social Reform." Biblical Theology Bulletin 15:2 (April 1985):43-48.

Goldberg, Michael. "Expository Articles: Exodus 1:13-14." Interpretation 37:4 (October 1983):389-91.

Gunn, David M. "The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart': Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1-14." In Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, pp. 72-96. Edited by David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 19. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1982.

Gurney, O. R. The Hittites. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964.

Habel, N. "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1965):316-23.

Hagin, Kenneth E. Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, and Death. Tulsa: Faith Library Publications, 1983.

Hannah, John D. "Exodus." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 103-62. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch." In The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 21-43. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982.

Hengstenberg, Ernst W. Egypt and the Books of Moses. Translated by R. D. C. Robbins. New York: M. H. Newman, 1843.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, Hearthstone Book, 1987.

Hilber, John W. "Theology of Worship in Exodus 24." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:2 (June 1996):177-89.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Holmgren, Fredrick. "Before the Temple, the Thornbush: An Exposition of Exodus 2:11-3:12." Reformed Journal 33:3 (March 1983):9-11.

Hopkins, Ezekiel. "Understanding the Ten Commandments." In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 41-58. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Hoppe, Leslie J. "Elders and Deuteronomy." Eglise et Theologie 14 (1983):259-72.

Horn, Siegfried H. Biblical Archaeology: A Generation of Discovery. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1985.

Hort, Greta. "The Plagues of Egypt." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1957):84-103; 70 (1958):48-59.

Houtman, C. "A Note on the LXX Version of Exodus 4, 6." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97:2 (1983):253-54.

_____ "On the Meaning of Uba'esim Uba'abanim in Exodus VII 19." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (1986):347-52.

Hughes, R. Kent. Living on the Cutting Edge. Westchester, Il.: Good News Publishers, Crossway Books, 1987.

Hyatt, J. Philip. Exodus. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1971; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Isser, Stanley. "Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisited." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):30-45.

Jacob, B. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Hoboken: KTAV, 1992.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, Gordon H. "I Will Multiply Your Seed." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):19-32.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "Exodus." In Genesis--Numbers. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.

_____. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Kalland, Lloyd. "Fetal Life." Eternity, February 1971, pp. 18-21, 24.

Keil, C. F., and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kempinski, Aharon. "Jacob in History." Biblical Archaeology Review 14:1 (January-February 1988):42-47.

Kennedy, James M. "The Social Background of Early Israel's Rejection of Cultic Images: A Proposal." Biblical Theology Bulletin 17:4 (October 1987);138-44.

Kiene, Paul F. The Tabernacle of God in the Wilderness. Translated by John S. Crandall. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

King, Geoffrey R. "Where Is the Ark of the Covenant?" Prophetic Witness 8:2 (February 1984):9-10.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____ The Bible In Its World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

_____ "Labour Conditions in the Egypt of the Exodus." Buried History 20:3 (September 1984):43-49.

_____ "The Old Testament in its Context: 2 From Egypt to the Jordan." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 60 (1971):3-11.

Kline, Meredith G. "Comments on an Old-New Error." Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978):172-89.

_____. "Deuteronomy." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 155-204. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

_____. "The Feast of Cover-over." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):497-510.

_____ "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus." Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 (1985-86):75-89.

_____ The Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.

Kubo, Sakae. "Why then the law?" Ministry (March 1980), pp. 12-14.

Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1966.

Laney, J. Carl. "God's Self-Revelation in Exodus 34:6-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):36-51.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus, by John Peter Lange and Frederic Gardiner. Translated by Tayler Lewis, A. Gosman, and Charles M. Mead.

Lev, Mordecai J., ed. Sepher Mitzvoth. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1990.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Lightner, Robert P. "Theological Perspectives on Theonomy." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):26-36; 570 (April-June 1986):134-45; 571 (July-September 1986):228-45.

Livingston, G. Herbert. "A Case Study of the Call of Moses." Asbury Theological Journal 42:2 (Fall 1987):89-113.

_____.The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Loewenstamm, Samuel E. "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf." Biblica 48 (1967):481-90.

_____ "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf--a Rejoinder." Biblica 56 (1975):330-43.

Lubarsky, Sandra B. "Judaism and the Justification of Abortion for Non-Medical Reasons." Journal of Reform Judaism 31:4 (Fall 1984):1-13.

M[ackintosh], C. H. Notes on the Book of Exodus. American ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1879.

MacLurg, Jeffrey E. "An Ode to Joy: The Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-21)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):43-54.

Magonet, Jonathan. "The Rhetoric of God: Exodus 6.2-8." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27 (1983):56-67.

Marcus, David. "Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13 (1981):31-52.

Mazar, Amihai. "Bronze Bull Found in Israelite High Place' from the Time of the Judges." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:5 (September-October 1983):34-40.

Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania, 1955.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Mosaic Covenant: A Proposal for Its Theological Significance." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):25-33.

_____. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Meyer, Frederick Brotherton. Devotional Commentary on Exodus. London: Purnell, n.d.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1981.

Milgrom, Jacob. "Thou Shalt Not Boil a Kid in It's Mother's Milk.'" Bible Review 1:3 (Fall 1985):48-55.

Mills, Watson E. "Childbearing in Ancient Times." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):54-56.

Minter, Steve. "Ten Timeless Words (Exodus 20:1-17)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):67-80.

Mitchell, Bill. "Leviticus 24.6: The Bread of the Presence--Rows or Piles?" Bible Translator 33:4 (October 1982):447-48.

Mitchell, T. C. "The Meaning of the Noun HTN in the Old Testament." Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969):93-112.

Montet, Pierre. Eternal Egypt. Translated by Doreen Weightman. New York: New American Library, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morgan, J. P. "The Morality of Suicide: Issues and Options." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):214-30.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. "The Name of the God of Moses." Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):121-33.

Mowvley, Henry. "John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35." Expository Times 95:5 (February 1984):135-37.

Munro, John "Prayer to a Sovereign God." Interest 56:2 (February 1990):20-21.

Myers, John V. "What Was Brimstone?" Kronos 9:1 (Fall 1983):57-60.

Naville, Edouard. The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1885.

New Bible Dictionary. 1962. S.v. "Plagues of Egypt," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.

Nichol, Francis David, ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. 7 vols. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1953-57.

Nicholson, E. W. "The Decalogue As the Direct Address of God." Vetus Testamentum 27 (October 1977):422-33.

Nowell, Irene. "Sabbath: Sign of the Covenant." The Bible Today 24:6 (November 1986):376-80.

Oosthuizen, M. J. "Some thoughts on the interpretation of Exodus 4:24-26." OTWSA 29(1986):1-30.

Patterson, Richard D. "Wonders in the Heavens and on the Earth: Apolcalyptic Imagery in the Old Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):385-403.

Paul, Shalom. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. A Faith That Endures: The Book of Hebrews Applied to the Real Issues of Life. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1992.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Perevolotsky, Aviram, and Israel Finkelstein. "The Southern Sinai Exodus Route in Ecological Perspective." Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):26-41.

Petrie, Flinders. Egypt and Israel. New York: E. S. Gorham, 1911.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. Ras Shamra and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962.

Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel's Criminal Law. New York: Schocken, 1970.

_____ "A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope." Vetus Testamentum 34 (January 1984): 39-52; 34 (July 1984):282-94.

_____ The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21:2-11." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30 (October 1984):51-66.

_____ "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel." Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973):349-61.

Pollock, Algernon J. The Tabernacle's Typical Teaching. London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Proffitt, T. D., III. "Moses and Anthropology: A New View of the Exodus." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:1 (March 1984):19-25.

Radday, Yehuda T. "The Spoils of Egypt." Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 12 (1983):127-47.

Ramey, William D. "The Great Escape (Exodus 14)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):33-42.

Ramm, Bernard L. His Way Out. Glendale: Gospel Light Publications; Regal Books, 1974.

Reviv, Hanoch. "The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating." Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94:4 (1982):566-75.

Ridout, Samuel. Lectures on the Tabernacle. Bible Truth Library series. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, n.d.

Robinson, Bernard P. "Symbolism in Exod. 15:22-27 (Marah and Elim)." Revue Biblique 94:3 (July 1987):376-88.

_____. "Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6." Vetus Testamentum 36:4 (October 1986):447-61.

Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. "Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus." Andrews University Seminary Studies 24:2 (Summer 1986):127-45.

Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Ross, Allen P. "When God Gives His People Bitter Water." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):55-66.

Rowley, Harold H. "Moses and the Decalogue." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester 34:1 (September 1951);81-118.

Ryrie, Charles C. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

Sailhamer, John H. "Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a." Trinity Journal 5 NS (Spring 1984):73-82.

_____. "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch." Westminster Theological Journal 53 (Fall 1991):241-61.

_____. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Sarles, Ken L. "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):57-82.

_____ "A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):329-52.

Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.

_____. "Exploring Exodus--The Oppression." Biblical Archaeologist 49:2 (June 1986):68-79.

Sasson, J. M. "Circumcision in the Ancient Near East." Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966):473-76.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Shafer, B. E., ed. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice. Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Sheriffs, Deryck. "Moving on with God: Key motifs in Exodus 13-20." Themelios 15:2 (January-February 1990):49-60.

Siker-Gieseler, Jeffrey. "The Theology of the Sabbath in the Old Testament: A Canonical Approach." Studia Biblica et Theologica 11:1 (April 1981):5-20.

Soltau, Henry W. The Tabernacle, the Priesthood and the Offerings. London: Morgan and Scott, n.d.

Speiser, E. A. "An Angelic Curse': Exodus 14:20." Journal of the American Oriental Society 80 (1960):198-200.

Spurgeon, Graham. "Is Abortion Murder?" In The Religious Case for Abortion, pp. 15-27. Edited by Hamilton Gregory. Asheville: Madison and Polk, 1983.

Steuer, Axel D. "The Freedom of God and Human Freedom." Scottish Journal of Theology 36:2:163-80.

Stiebing, William H., Jr. "Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement in Canaan Be Redated?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):58-69.

Strange, James F. "The Jewish Calendar." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):28-32.

Strauss, Lehman. The Eleven Commandments. 2nd ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1975.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Sring, Margit L. "The Horn-Motifs of the Bible and the Ancient Near East." Andrews University Seminary Studies 22:3 (Autumn 1984):327-40.

Tan, Paul Lee. Principles of Literal Interpretation of the Bible. By the Author, 1967.

Tolhurst, A. H. "Whatever Happened to the Ark?" Ministry, June 1984, pp. 13-15.

Unger, Merrill F. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

_____ Biblical Demonology. 7th ed. Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1967.

_____ Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1974.

_____ "The Significance of the Sabbath." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489 (January-March 1966):53-59.

Unger's Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. S.v. "Cherub," by Merrill F. Unger.

_____ S.v. "Metrology," by E. McChesney, revised by Merrill F. Unger.

van der Meulen, Henry E. Faber. "One or two veils in front of the holy of holies?" Theologia Evangelica 18:1 (March 1985):22-27.

Van Seters, John. The Hyksos. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.

Voss, Robert J. "Who Am I That I Should Go? Exodus 3:11 (Ex. 2:25--4:18)." Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 80:4 (Fall 1983):243-47.

Wagner, Maurice E. "How to Honor Your Parents When They've Hurt You." Psychology for Living 28:6 (June 1986):12-14.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

_____ "Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:513 (January-March 1972):33-47.

_____ "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):3-13.

Walvoord, John F. "The New Covenant." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 186-200. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Ward, William A. The Spirit of Ancient Egypt. Beirut: Khayats, 1965.

Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. 1692. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.

Wenham, John W. The Goodness of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1974.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Williams, Gary R. "The Purpose of Penology in the Mosaic Law and Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:529 (January-March 1976):42-55.

Wilson, Robert Dick. "Yahweh (Jehovah) and Exodus 6:3." In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 29-40. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Wilson, Robert R. "The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41:1 (1979):18-36.

Winter, Ralph D. "The Growth of Israel in Egypt (The Phenomenon of Exponential Growth)." Paper published by the Institute of International Studies, Pasadena, Ca., 14 April 1993.

Wolinski, Arelene. "Egyptian Masks: The Priest and His Role." Archaeology 40:1 (January-February 1987):22-29.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77.

Wyatt, N. "The Significance of the Burning Bush." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):361-65.

Wyrick, Stephen Von. "Israel's Golden Calves." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):3-12.

Youngblood, Ronald F. Exodus. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

_____ "A New Look at an Old Problem: The Date of the Exodus." Christianity Today 26:20 (December 17, 1982):58, 60.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Practice of Witchcraft in the Scriptures." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:512 (October-December 1971):352-60.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Exodus (Book Introduction)

THE BOOK OF EXODUS.

INTRODUCTION.

The second Book of Moses is called Exodus from the Greek word Exodos, which signifies going out; because it contains the history of the going out of the children of Israel out of Egypt. The Hebrews, from the words with which it begins, call it Veelle Shemoth : These are the names. (Challoner) --- It contains the space of 143 years, till the beginning of the second year after the liberation of the Israelites. (Tirinus) --- Their slavery is described in the first chapters; and is supposed to have continued ninety years. (Du Hamel) --- The laws prescribed by God to his people, the sacrifices, tabernacle, &c., were all intended to prefigure the Christian dispensation. (St. Augustine, City of God vii. 31.) --- Moses himself was a type of Jesus Christ, who was rejected by the synagogue, and received by the Gentiles, as the Jewish Legislator was abandoned by his mother, and educated by the Egyptian princess. She delivers him back to his mother; and thus the Jews will, at last, acknowledge our Saviour. (Du Hamel) --- God deigns to address his people in the character of a powerful Eastern monarch, and requires the like attention. He appoints his ministers, like guards, to attend before his tabernacle, &c. The laws which he enacts, are such as suited the Jewish people: they were not to rise all at once to perfection; but these laws guide them, as it were, on the road. They are infinitely more perfect than those of the surrounding nations. (Calmet)

Gill: Exodus (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS

This book is called by the Jews Veelleh Shemoth, from the first words with which it begins, and sometimes Sepher Shemoth, and sometimes only Shemoth. It is by the Septuagint called Exodus, from whom we have the name of Exodus, which signifies "a going out"; see Luk 9:31, because it treats of the going of the children of Israel out of Egypt; and hence in the Alexandrian copy it is called the Exodus of Egypt; and so the Syriac version entitles it the second book of the law, called "the going out"; and to the same purpose the Arabic version. The Jews sometimes give it the name of Nezikin, as Buxtorf ^a observes out of the Masora on Gen 24:8 because in it some account is given of losses, and the restitution of them. That this book is of divine inspiration, and to be reckoned in the canon of the sacred writings, is sufficiently evident to all that believe the New Testament; since there are so many quotations out of it there by Christ, and his apostles; particularly see Mar 12:26 and that it was wrote by Moses is not to be doubted, but when is not certain; it must be after the setting up of the tabernacle in the wilderness; the greatest part of what is contained in it, he was an eye and ear witness of; it plainly points out the accomplishment of the promises and prophecies delivered to Abraham, that his posterity would be very numerous, that they would be afflicted in a land not theirs, and in the fourth generation come out of it with great substance. It treats of the afflictions of the Israelites in Egypt, after the death of Joseph, until their deliverance by Moses; of his birth, calling, and mission to Pharaoh, to demand of him to let the children of Israel go; of the ten plagues upon him and his people, for refusing to dismiss them; of the departure of Israel from Egypt, and the institution of the passover on that account; of their passage through the Red sea into the wilderness, and of the various exercises and afflictions, supplies and supports they met with there; of the giving of a body of laws unto them, moral, ceremonial, and judicial; and of the building of the tabernacle, and all things appertaining to it; and throughout the whole, as there is a figure and representation of the passage of the people of God out of spiritual Egypt, through the wilderness of this world, to the heavenly Canaan, and of various things they must meet with in their passage, so there are many types of Christ, his person, office, and grace, and of his church, his word, and ordinances, which are very edifying and instructing. The book contains a history of about one hundred and forty years, from the death of Joseph, to the erection of the tabernacle.

Gill: Exodus 21 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS 21

In this, and the two following chapters, are delivered various laws and precepts, partly of a moral, and partly of a religious, but chiefly of a civil nature, respecting the commonwealth of Israel, and its political good. This chapter treats of servants, and laws relating to them; to menservants, how long they shall serve, and what is to be done to those who are desirous of staying with their masters after their time is up, Exo 21:1, to maidservants, and especially betrothed ones, either to a father or a son, Exo 21:7, likewise it contains laws concerning the slaughter of men, whether with design or unawares, Exo 21:12, and concerning the ill usage of parents, Exo 21:15, and man stealing, Exo 21:16 and of mischief that comes by men's quarrelling and fighting, Exo 21:18 and by smiting a man or maidservant, Exo 21:20, to a woman with child, that is, by means of men's striving and contending with each other, Exo 21:22 and of damages that come by oxen, or to them, Exo 21:28.