← Back to sermon library

Exodus chapter 21, beginning 
in verse one. Now these are the judgments which 
you shall set before them. If you buy a Hebrew servant, 
he shall serve six years. And in the seventh, he shall 
go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he 
shall go out by himself. If he comes in married, then 
his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a 
wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her 
children shall be her masters, and he shall go out by himself. 
But if the servant plainly says, I love my master, my wife, and 
my children, I will not go out free. Then his master shall bring 
him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the 
door, or to the door post, and his master shall pierce his ear 
with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. 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. Amen. Now, chapters 21 
to 23 are commonly referred to as the Book of the Covenant. 
Sometimes chapter 24 is included with that. If you look at chapter 
24, specifically at verse 7, it says, took the book of the 
covenant and read in the hearing of the people and they said all 
that the Lord has said we will do and be obedient." Now that 
may not just be confined to chapters 21 to 23, but it certainly includes 
chapters 21 to 23. Remember that last time we saw 
that the Ten Commandments ended and then the people react according 
to chapter 20 verses 18 to 21. They ask Moses to function as 
a mediator. They don't want to directly face 
God. And so Moses then returns to the top of the mountain, according 
to verse 21, So Moses goes back up to the mountain to receive 
these laws, to convey them, or to bring them to the people of 
Israel. Now, the connection between chapters 
20 and 21 to 23 is pretty simple. You have the general principles, 
the Ten Commandments stipulated in chapter 20, and then in chapters 
21 to 23, you have the outworking of those general principles in 
society. We oftentimes refer to this as 
the judicial law. So I want to look first at the 
application of the Ten Commandments in verse 1, and then secondly 
we'll take up the law concerning servants in verses 2 to 11. As I said, there is a connection, 
a tight connection, between chapter 20 and then chapters 21 to 23. So say, for instance, the Sixth 
Commandment, you shall not murder. It's straightforward, it's pretty 
obvious. But when it comes to the civil 
polity, how do we flesh that out? Well, within this particular 
chapter, chapter 21, it goes on to make a distinction between 
what is called murder and what is called killing or manslaughter. So what you find in 21 to 23 
is concrete application of the Ten Commandments. In fact, Walter 
Kaiser makes this observation. If you look at verse 1, it says, 
now these are the judgments which you shall set before them. Kaiser 
said, while these judgments deal mainly with temporal matters, 
they nevertheless are based on one or another express commandment 
in the Decalogue. It is most appropriate, therefore, 
that these judicial and political regulations given by God to Moses 
when Moses approached the thick darkness where God was, should 
be set alongside the Decalogue. The two belong together in time 
as well as in interpretation. So he says there is a close connection 
between chapters 20 and then 21 to 23. Another commentator 
by the name of Stuart says in saying these are the laws you 
are to set before them, God did not imply that what preceded 
the 10 words or commandments And the reminders or implications 
in chapter 20 verses 22 to 26 were not also laws for Israel, 
rather the new term judgments simply help demarcate a corpus 
of law, the book of the covenant that begins to provide greater 
specificity to the general sense of holy behavior required by 
the 10 words or commandments. So you've got these general principles 
in the Decalogue and then the fleshing out or the application 
of them in terms of the body politic. Now with reference to 
judicial law, it is one of the divisions in a three-fold division 
of the law. Remember that the Ten Commandments 
we refer to as moral law. The moral law is a revelation 
of God's will. It is for man wherever he finds 
himself in the continuum of time. Whether he's in the Old Covenant 
or he's in the New Covenant, he is always under God's moral 
law. Then Israel also had what was 
called the ceremonial law, and our confession describes the 
ceremonial law this way. It says, besides this law, moral 
law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people 
of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly 
of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, 
and benefits. and partly holding forth divers 
instructions and moral duties, all which ceremonial laws, being 
appointed only to the time of Reformation, are by Jesus Christ, 
the true Messiah and only Lawgiver, who is furnished with power from 
the Father for that end, abrogated and taken away." So the ceremonial 
law was for Israel specifically in the Old Covenant. We're not 
under that ceremonial law. Christ fulfilled it, and thus 
abrogated it in terms of any abiding validity for the people 
of God on this side of the cross. And then there is a third division, 
and that is called the judicial law. And that's what we find 
specified in chapters 21 to 23. You see a lot of judicial law 
as well in the book of Deuteronomy. In many respects, Exodus and 
Deuteronomy are parallel In terms of the application of judicial 
law, Leviticus tends to lean more towards ceremonial law in 
terms of what conduct was necessary for Israel in terms of the cult, 
the religious worship of God. Now, in terms of the judicial 
law, our confession tells us that the judicial law expired 
with the state of the people of Israel. So when the Commonwealth 
of Israel was no longer, in terms of the destruction of Jerusalem 
in AD 70, those judicial laws expired with those people. However, 
the confession goes on to say that the general equity of those 
laws pertains, and we'll deal with that in just a moment. But 
the judicial law governed the people of Israel during their 
tenure in the land. In fact, when you look at Deuteronomy, 
very often you'll see that appendage with reference to the giving 
of law, judicial law, so that you'll know how to conduct yourself 
in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. In other words, 
the people of Israel go from Egypt, then to the plains of 
Moab, and then they go into the land of promise, and there they're 
supposed to function in a manner that is consistent with the giving 
of God's judicial law to the people of Israel. Now, the judicial 
law governed a theocratic nation. Remember that Israel was a theocracy. They had a monarch, to be sure, 
but at the end of 2 Chronicles, or 1 Chronicles, it says that 
Solomon sat on Yahweh's throne. And so, while a monarchy, it 
was nevertheless the case that it was a theocracy. God directly 
ruled the children of Israel in a way that we do not find 
with reference to the New Covenant. Obviously, the Lord Christ is 
the head of the church. The Lord Christ is the head of 
all things, that includes the civil state, but what you find 
in terms of the theocratic nation of Israel is no longer the case 
with reference to any nation on earth or with reference to 
the church itself. So though we have a head that 
is over the civil sphere and a head that is over the ecclesiastical 
sphere, there is a distinction, there is a separation. So the 
judicial law governed their tenure in the land, the judicial law 
governed a theocratic nation, and as our confession says, and 
as the Reformed tradition says, the judicial law expired with 
the state of that people. Now, in terms of the wisdom of 
the judicial law, we'll get to the general equity clause in 
just a moment, but with reference to the wisdom of the judicial 
law, when you read through this, it makes good sense. In other 
words, if we ask the question, what is God's will, with reference 
to civil polity, we go to the book of Exodus and the book of 
Deuteronomy, and we see a great deal of wisdom. We see a great 
deal of information on those things that are pleasing in the 
sight of a thrice holy God. And I'm reminded of John Gill, 
he made this observation concerning the judicial law. He says, I 
cannot but be of opinion that a digest of civil laws might 
be made out of the Bible, the law of the Lord that is perfect, 
either as lying and express words in it, or to be deduced by the 
analogy of things and cases, and by just consequence, as would 
be sufficient for the government of any nation. and then there 
would be no need of so many law books, nor of so many lawyers, 
and perhaps there would be fewer lawsuits. However, we Christians... Notice what he says. There's 
wisdom, but it's not the case that in the New Covenant church, 
this is necessarily the way it's going to be for those in the 
church. Listen to what he says. However, 
we Christians, under whatsoever government we are, are directed 
to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, and 
for conscience' sake, even to everyone that is not contrary 
to common sense and reason, and to religion and conscience." 
And then he says, see Romans 13, Titus 3, and 1 Peter 2. So 
on the one hand, the judicial law of Moses would provide a 
great digest of laws for anybody politic to govern with. It would 
reduce the number of law books, it would reduce the number of 
lawyers, which would always be a fantastic win, and it would 
reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits. So there is wisdom 
in terms of the judicial law. But John Gill does not move from 
that wisdom of the judicial law to suggesting that the civil 
government on the other side of the cross is duty-bound by 
God to enforce the civil laws of Moses. Now that brings us 
to Martin Luther. Martin Luther, who many claim 
to have been an antinomian, I don't think he was an antinomian, he 
just stressed that second use of the law, the pedagogical use. For Luther, justification was 
everything. And so for Luther, the use of 
the law in terms of pointing men to Christ was where he emphasized. But if you look at his catechism, 
he does not disregard the normative use of the law. He himself said 
concerning the judicial laws of Moses, he says, nor would 
it be a sin if the emperor used some of the civil laws of Moses. 
In fact, it would be a good idea if he did. Therefore, the sophists 
are in error when they imagine that after Christ, the civil 
laws of Moses are fatal to us. And that's from his commentary 
on Galatians. Now, again, these men appreciate 
the wisdom of the judicial laws of Moses, but they don't move 
forward to the point where they are saying that the government, 
the civil government on this side of the cross, is duty-bound 
to enforce the judicial laws of Moses. Enter what has been 
called Christian Reconstruction. This started in the 50s and the 
60s. It really got going in the 70s, 
kind of fizzled out a bit in the 80s or toward the end of 
the 80s. And Christian Reconstruction is also known as Theonomy. The 
word theonomy literally means God's law. It's a great word. Theonomy, theos and namos. You combine those two words into 
theonomy and you get God's law. Now, the main proponents of this 
were fellows by the name of Roussos, John Rashtouni, a man by the 
name of Gary North, and then another man by the name of Greg 
Bonson. All three of these men are dead now. Subsequent to Bonson's 
death, or actually North just died in February, but he again 
kind of fizzled out in terms of the theonomy stuff. But these 
men were very prolific, and again, in the 70s and 80s, they wrote 
a ton of books. These three, and then a couple 
other fellows, guys by the name of Gary DeMar and James Jordan. 
Well, they said that the civil laws of Moses are not only wise, 
but modern governments are duty-bound under God to enforce the judicial 
laws of Moses. That's the distinctive position 
of theonomy or Christian reconstruction. Now, the movement called theonomy 
demands the enforcement of the judicial laws by the modern civil 
state. So that means Justin Trudeau 
is duty-bound under God to enforce the civil laws of Moses. That's 
essentially what the theonomic position means. Now, there's 
a great deal of confusion about theonomy today. It's made a bit 
of a resurgence in all places, of all places in Canada, and 
I think at times, though, people simply think that theonomy means 
the application of God's law. If that's what they mean, hey, 
I got no problems with that. But if they mean theonomy in 
its actual definition, in terms of the civil government being 
mandated by God to enforce the civil laws of Moses, then I think 
we've got a bit of a problem. Greg Bonson in his Theonomy and 
Christian Ethics made this, he's got several points in the preface 
to the second edition, several points that most reformed people 
would agree on, except probably for two points. Number eight, 
He says, civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated 
to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath 
against criminals and giving account on the final day of their 
service before the king of kings, their creator and judge. Now 
on the surface, we'd probably say, yeah, they are duty bound. 
Again, you run into some problems with the New Testament when you 
assume this particular position. There is not a theocratic nation 
anymore. There's not a separate commonwealth 
of Israel occupying a particular land, having as its direct theocratic 
king, the God of heaven and earth. So to move from, this would be 
a good idea, to, they must enforce this, is a difficult step to 
support with the New Testament documents. He says in point number 
10, the civil precepts of the Old Testament, standing judicial 
laws, are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, 
even in the punishment of criminals. And this is the rub. This is 
the bottom line. They believe that the civil government 
must enforce not just the civil laws of Moses, but in particular 
the penal sanctions with reference to those judicial laws. So in 
other words, the civil government today is duty-bound by God to 
punish with the sword all of the particular crimes that are 
specified in the Old Testament. Now I suspect that we can have 
a robust appreciation for God's law, have a robust appreciation 
for a role of the civil magistrate where he does engage in that 
particular aspect of law-keeping and enforcement But with reference 
to theonomy, again, the New Covenant, the New Testament, does not support 
this direct correlation, that the government is duty-bound 
under God to fulfill the application of the judicial laws of Moses. 
Gary North on several occasions says that the government is in 
a covenant with God. Now when you ask the question, 
which covenant, There's never an answer. The only operative 
covenant that I'm aware of today is the New Covenant. And the 
New Covenant does not specify any terms or features for Justin 
Trudeau to carry out the application of the judicial laws of Moses. 
So again, I think the position of John Gill and I think the 
position of Martin Luther has more biblical warrant. On the 
one hand, it is just. On the one hand, it is wise. 
On the one hand, it would be good. But to make that step into 
saying, now it is the case that the civil government today is 
tasked with enforcing the civil laws of Moses is a step that 
I do not think the New Testament corroborates. Now, just a bit 
of my background. I've dealt with this a bit. I've 
read a bit of these men and their various books. They make a lot 
of great points, but they are not historically or consistent 
rather with historical theology. I think the reformed position 
does a better job at providing a workable framework for how 
we do law in civil society. I think that general equity clause 
is most helpful. It goes on to say, with reference 
to the judicial law of Moses, not obliging any now by virtue 
of that institution, because the commonwealth of Israel is 
dissolved. No more theocratic nation, no 
more special people of God living in their own particular land, 
no more judges appointed from a central sanctuary, none of 
that stuff obtains. So the confession says, not obliging 
any now by virtue of that institution, but then it goes on to say their 
general equity only being of moral use. Now herein lies the 
rub. How do we find what the general 
equity is? How do we sort of go through 
these laws, parse through the various sort of details that 
we're going to find in the coming weeks in Exodus 21 to 23. How do we know what we can apply? 
How do we know what we should apply? And how do we know what 
is absolutely positive in terms of application? I think Francis 
Turretin offers a bit of a framework to help. I don't think this is 
foolproof. I think we still have a lot of 
work to do, and I would suggest that when we move through these 
particular codes or these particular laws, some of the things that 
I bring are going to be tentative, like the whole thing tonight 
on dealing with servants slash slaves. Brethren, I've got a 
limited amount of time on a Wednesday to prepare these things, and 
there's some dense, densely packed information here that I'm not, 
you know, in a first-hand sort of a way in tune with. I've not ever been in Old Covenant 
Israel, haven't had a servant, haven't been a servant, certainly 
are foreign to some of these things. So some of the interpretations, 
some of the applications are going to be tentative. And I 
say that at the outset. I mean, when we get into the 
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, all those sorts of principles, 
there's some tough things to sort of slug through on here. But I think Turretin offers a 
good framework in terms of how do we appropriate a general equity 
use of the judicial laws of Moses. He says, first, that which prevails 
not only among the Jews but also among the Gentiles is of common 
right. So basically he would exclude 
anything that was only appropriate to the Jews. If it's appropriate 
to the Jews only as Jews, then it doesn't have that sort of 
general equity that we can extrapolate and apply to Gentiles. But things 
that are applicable to Jew and Gentile, when it comes to murder, 
when it comes to adultery, when it comes to those things that 
are crystal clear in terms of their attachment to the Ten Commandments, 
well then that's a good sign that we can grab some general 
equity there. I mean, this first section, what 
do verses 1 to 11, even, you know, if we trace all these case 
laws back to a particular general principle in the Decalogue, most 
likely it's the Eighth Commandment that we're dealing with in verses 
1 to 11. I mean, there's no bodily injury, 
there's no death, there's no destruction. It typically is 
an issue of property, and while we're not going to suggest that 
the slavery in Old Covenant Israel was shadow slavery, nevertheless, 
there are business transactions and liabilities and assets involved 
in the passage that we have to deal with. So it's most likely 
an Eighth Commandment sort of a thing. Then he goes on to say, 
second, what is found to be conformed to the precepts of the Decalogue 
and serves to explain and conform it. So if you can say, for instance, 
when you get later on in the law, you've got sort of admonition 
on a flat roof to have a fence around the top of the roof. Why? 
So someone doesn't fall off and break their neck and die. You 
can see how that's connected to the sixth commandment. What's 
a general equity principle? You should put a fence around 
your swimming pool or, you know, make sure you ensure the safety 
of persons that are on your premises. Now, obviously, people can take 
that too far. You know, somebody can slip on 
a banana peel out front and sue us into oblivion. That's not 
necessarily a good thing. But we should, as far as we're 
able, try to provide a safe place. That's why I don't mean safe 
place from trigger warnings and that sort of thing. But typically, 
I try to keep the sidewalks free from snow and ice during the 
inclement weather so that persons don't hurt themselves. Where'd 
you get that big bruise on your head? Oh, it was at that lousy 
Baptist church on Wellington because they don't shovel their 
walkways. Well, no, that's not responsible. 
So when it's directly connected to the Decalogue, again, he says 
that general equity is more obvious. And then he says, thirdly, the 
things so repeated in the New Testament that their observance 
is commended to Christians. So again, a framework, not an 
exhaustive one. It's easier to be a theonomist. 
Well, the magistrate has to apply every single thing that he finds 
in Exodus 21 to 23. That would be an easier way to 
go, but again, when you look at the New Testament, the emphasis 
there, you don't find that. You find the apostle tell us 
to let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, 
for there is no authority except from God. When you get to that 
New Covenant era, that New Covenant system, the Apostle Paul is writing 
at a time when there's an emperor in Rome. And Paul does not say, 
we need to overthrow the emperor, we need to institute a monarchy, 
and we need to get back to an Old Covenant sort of Israel, 
or theocratic sort of a structure. That's not the emphasis in the 
New Covenant. That is not the emphasis. The 
people of God are told to function under whatever government system 
they find themselves under in a manner that is consistent with 
God's holy word. Be faithful, don't compromise 
obviously, don't sin, don't transgress, don't violate the law of God, 
but be respectable, upright citizens, paying your taxes and doing those 
things that God has called you to do in the civil polity. So 
with reference to the judicial laws of Moses, again, the primary 
ways of going after it is either A, there's a strict correlation 
between what we find here and what, say for instance, the liberal 
government must impose in our own situation here in Canada, 
or the larger swath of the reform tradition is more akin to what 
Turretin says. Figure out those things, those 
principles, a bit of hermeneutics with reference to extrapolating 
the general equity out of these laws and seeking to make application 
of them in the situation that we find ourselves. Now, turning 
to the law concerning servants. There's three things in verses 
2 to 11 that deserves our attention. First, the limitation on service. Secondly, the acquisition of 
a family during service. And thirdly, the protection of 
female servants. So, those are the three things 
dealt with under the law concerning servants in verses 2 to 11. Now, 
in terms of limitation on service, you've got this concept of slavery 
or servanthood, not only in the Old Testament, but in the New 
Testament. I'm pretty sure when I preached through Colossians, 
I dealt with slavery in the New Testament. In the Roman Empire, 
there was a lot of slaves, and slaves were not what we typically 
think of. our minds, at least for me as 
an American, it's typically married to the concept of shadow slavery 
when men were kidnapped from their country and brought as 
property into another country. That's not the slavery that you 
find in the New Testament, that's not the slavery that you find 
in the Old Testament. There are prohibitions against 
that type of slavery in the Old Testament. New Testament, it 
was once said that if the If they uniformed or put uniforms 
on the slaves, that would be a bad idea, because then they 
would know how many there were, and they might just rise up against 
the Roman government. They would serve in civil service. 
They would be all kinds of different jobs. It was not, again, what 
we think of typically, at least from a North American background, 
in terms of what slavery looks like. Now with reference to the 
Old Testament, what we're dealing with here in chapter 21 has to 
deal with Hebrews, has to deal with persons that are within 
the same country. There's laws regulating slaves 
from foreign countries, but that's not what's in view here. So Exodus 
21, 1-11, Leviticus 25, 39-55, and Deuteronomy 15, 12-18 deals 
with slavery or servanthood in the Old Testament. Now notice 
in verse 2, if you buy a Hebrew servant. Stuart says, the most 
common vocabulary word used for the servant is ebed. which can 
mean, and notice, he says, worker, employee, servant, or slave. Anyone in any of these categories 
came under the protection of Yahweh's covenant law. So just 
because we see that slave is used or servant is used, again, 
we need to disassociate from our minds the concept of shadow 
slavery when men were kidnapped and brought to another country 
and made to be property. Robert Alter, a Jewish commentator 
on the Old Testament, says, "...what is clearly involved is not chattel 
slavery, but what amounts to a kind of indentured servitude. 
The Bible does not question this institution, but sets certain 
limits on it, and as one can see in the subsequent laws, the 
slave retains basic human rights." Most important that we get that 
concept. Now if you look specifically 
at verse 10, if he takes another wife, so the Bible sees here 
polygamy, or at least a plurality of wives. Now I must say, there 
are certain things that happen in a post-fall world. Things 
like slavery, things like divorce, things like polygamy, things that happen 
after the fall that wouldn't have been in a pre-fall world 
that God provides legislation on so that the innocent or judicially 
innocent parties or the weaker parties are protected. The fact 
that there is this statement, verses 7 to 11, on female servants 
indicates that particular emphasis. There are laws given to protect 
the judicially innocent or to protect the more vulnerable in 
society. So those people that say, oh, 
the Old Testament is barbaric, it's antiquated, it has nothing 
to do with us, those people don't know what they're talking about. 
The Old Testament, God's law, was about providing redress for 
wrongs committed. It was about providing status 
and protection for those who were sort of vulnerable within 
society. Now, in terms of the buying of 
a servant, notice again in verse 2, if you buy a Hebrew servant, 
now there are probably a few ways as to why one would be in 
this precarious position, but the two most obvious is what 
we'll deal with. The first is if the person was 
a thief. Notice in verse 3 of chapter 
22, if the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his 
bloodshed. This is a man who breaks into somebody's house 
in order to steal stuff. It says, he should make full 
restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall 
be sold for his theft. He'll be sold for his theft into 
the family that he tried to steal from. Now you might think that's 
a bit awkward. I'm not sure that I'd want that 
guy living with me. Oh yes you would because that's 
how you're going to get recompense. That's how you're going to get 
paid back. You're going to get servitude from this particular 
person and conversely it does this particular person good. 
Instead of breaking into your house, he's now living in a house 
with hopefully discipline and order and rules and structure. 
Whatever led to him to that point where he broke into your house, 
hopefully that will be corrected along the way as he begins to 
learn new habits, getting up at six o'clock, doing his devotions, 
eating his breakfast, heavy on protein and fat, going to work 
and working hard, things that his parents obviously never taught 
him. So there's a two-fold benefit 
with reference to a thief who is found and then he is employed 
in an indentured servitude manner. The second reason was poverty. 
If a man was poor, he'd sell himself into slavery or servanthood. If you look at Leviticus 25, 
specifically at verse 39, And if one of your brethren who dwells 
by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not 
compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner, 
he shall be with you and shall serve you until the year of Jubilee." 
Now this would be similar to somebody joining the military 
today. Oftentimes young guys will join 
the military, it's a guaranteed income source, there's food, 
there's clothing, there's a whole host of things. I mean working 
at a warehouse, working in a whole lot of situations would very 
much parallel the sort of a situation that is envisaged in this particular 
situation. So if you buy a Hebrew servant, 
and then notice the limitation in terms of his service. He's 
not chattel, he's not property, he's not, you know, a dignified 
tool. He shall serve six years, and 
in the seventh, he shall go out free and pay nothing. Turn over 
to the parallel in Deuteronomy chapter 15. Deuteronomy chapter 
15, same sort of an emphasis in verse 12. It says, If your 
brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves 
you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free 
from you. And when you send him away free 
from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed. You shall 
supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, 
and from your winepress. From what the Lord your God has 
blessed you with, you shall give to him. You shall remember that 
you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God 
redeemed you. Therefore, I command you this 
thing today." So going back to Exodus chapter 21, the particular 
emphasis in the law of verse 2 is a limitation on service, 
which gives sort of the death blow to the concept that this 
was a slave that was a piece of property, and he was owned 
outright by his owner forever. Now notice secondly, the acquisition 
of a family, should this man have one while he's in this position 
of indentured servitude. Notice verse 3, if he comes in 
by himself, he shall go out by himself. He serves the six years, 
he came in as a single man, after he leaves he goes back as a single 
man. Notice 3b, if he comes in married, 
then his wife shall go out with him. So he's married, he and 
his wife go into this indentured servitude situation. When the 
six years are up, both of them exit from that particular situation. But notice according to verse 
4, if his master has given him a wife, and she has born him 
sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her masters, 
and he shall go out by himself. Now it's just here that all of 
us go, okay that's it, we're done. This is terrible, it's 
barbaric, it's horrific. Wait a minute, this man's footing 
the bill for everything. Most likely he gave the wife, 
or gave this man a wife, so that she would bear more children 
and thus he would have more servants. Remember, he's feeding them, 
he's clothing them, he's putting a roof over their head. He has 
a vested interest in what happens at the end of the six years. 
This is a business transaction. They're not living here on love 
and fresh air. The man sold himself into this 
service with a particular view. I want to work for you for the 
period of six years. I want to serve you. I want to 
benefit in terms of room and board and all those provisions. 
So along the way, the master says, well, here's a wife for 
you. Go ahead and have babies. That master, yes, is going to 
get more servants. And again, I think that sounds 
pretty barbaric to us, but I don't think it was in this particular 
situation. So the master is financially 
responsible for those under his charge. So at the end of the 
six years, the guy who came to him single must leave single. He can't take the wife and the 
kids. Now, again, it's at this point 
we say, well, the poor fellow. Well, the poor fellow has options, 
brethren. The poor fellow can either A, 
go get another job somewhere else and visit them on the weekends. A lot of people do that. Military 
service, that oftentimes is the case. Secondly, he could get 
a better job, make enough money to pay the former master the 
price of ransom and redeem the wife and the children. He's certainly 
free to do that. Nobody is keeping him from doing 
that. I mean, if he's a moron, he can't get a better job, tough. 
But that brings us to the third eventuality, which is verse 5. 
Notice, but if the servant plainly says, I love my master, my wife, 
and my children, I will not go out free. There may be the actual 
situation where he says, this is a good gig. I'm not the brightest 
bulb in the chandelier. I get good food here. I have 
a nice bed. I now have a wife. I got a few 
kids. They're treated well. They're 
looked after. Everybody's happy. I'm going 
to stick it out. Why not? This is my career. See, it's not always this negative, 
horrifying experience that we assume, again, with reference 
to chattel slavery that was practiced in North America. With reference 
to this particular situation, the man says, I love my master, 
my wife, and my children. I will not go out free. Now notice 
the sign or the symbol of this contractual obligation. Verse 
six, then his master shall bring him to the judges, Literally, 
it's, then his master shall bring him to the gods. Typically, they 
will translate that as judges. It could be bring him to God. In other words, whatever this 
transaction entails, it's either before Yahweh or it's before 
Yahweh's representatives, which are the judges. Either way, it 
is a solemn occasion. And then we see the symbolism 
involved, the sign that's involved. And his master shall bring him 
to God. He shall also bring him to the 
door or to the door post, and his master shall pierce his ear 
with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. Again, that just 
sounds barbaric to us. You know, he hoists him up to 
the wall and he grabs that thing and he... But every single day, 
girls go to places and even boys to get their ears pierced. at 
every single day. They pay money to do this. So 
this should not be a barbaric sort of an assault on our delicate 
sensitivities. Stewart simply explains, then 
the boss bore a hole in the servant's ear, probably in the earlobe. probably in the earlobe, which 
became a visible sign of permanent commitment to service. This prevented 
a servant from sneaking away from his boss, relocating elsewhere, 
and entering into a service contract with someone else. It also provided 
a permanent reminder to a boss that he had an obligation to 
employ the servant for life and could not renege on that obligation. So when the servant does what 
the servant does according to verse 5, that is an obligation 
as well on the part of the master. He's agreeing. I'm going to house 
you, I'm going to clothe you, and I'm going to feed you for 
as long as you're on this earth. So let's not be too harsh on 
these masters and too pro-servant here. The master's putting a 
lot on the line as well in this particular arrangement. And that 
brings us thirdly to the protection of female servants in verses 
7 to 11. Notice in the first place the 
sale of a daughter. Verse 7, and if a man sells his 
daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male 
slaves do. Again, why would a man do this 
with his female daughter? Or with his, well, his daughter, 
his, I guess, by definition, she's a female. I've been thinking 
about Matt Walsh too much. So, and if a man sells his daughter, 
why? Because he's poor. That would 
be the only eventuality that would induce a man to sell his 
daughter into servanthood. But the specification is, she 
shall not go out as the male slaves do. It's not the same 
sort of a manner. The male slave serves for six 
years and then off he goes. No, there's a measure of protection 
here for this particular woman such that the male slave doesn't 
himself enjoy. Notice the purchase of the female 
servant. You've got the man selling in 
verse 7, and then verses 8 to 10 deals with the man buying. And notice, the first condition, 
or the first situation, is that the master is not pleased with 
her, according to verse 8. If she does not please her master, 
notice this next clause, who has betrothed her to himself, 
then he shall let her be redeemed. So there's a legal contractual 
obligation on his part at this point. In other words, when he 
ponies up the dough for this female servant, he has entered 
into an obligation. He can't just say, you know what, 
I don't like you, your breath smells, you put on a few pounds, 
I'm just not happy with you anymore. He can't do that, brethren. There's 
protection here for this woman. Now again, it strikes us as a 
bit harsh, the language, the concepts, the particular situation, 
but we don't live there. We don't know what it was like. 
We don't know that particular environment. We live in a world 
of Costco's and Walmart's and all those sorts of things. There 
is a disconnect that we face in terms of interpreting these 
particular laws. But suffice to say, the woman 
is protected. If she does not please her master, 
who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. In other words, he's free to 
break that contractual obligation by allowing her to be redeemed 
if she has the money or she knows somebody that can pay that redemption 
price. Notice a further stipulation. 
He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people. That's 
forbidden. That's prohibited. You cannot 
do that. You must protect this woman since 
he has dealt deceitfully with her. Now verse 9 envisages another 
possibility. The man bought her for his son. So verse 9. And if he has betrothed 
her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom 
of daughters. In other words, protection and 
finance and all the things that are stipulated in terms of the 
parental obligation to their children. She comes under that 
umbrella. She is a protected woman in a 
society where to be without protection would have been very difficult. 
In fact, brethren, there's probably more to commend some of these 
models than the way we find ourselves in our own generation. There 
is safety built into the theocracy in terms of the most vulnerable 
among them. And then notice verse 10. So 
this applies to either the son of verse 9 or the man in verse 
8. So if the man in verse 8 decides 
to go ahead and keep her along, or if the son in verse 9 adds 
her as a concubine or as an additional wife, notice what verse 10 says. If he takes another wife, he 
shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage 
rights. In other words, this woman who 
was sold by her poor father into this covenant family is afforded 
the protection that is common course for all married women 
in the old covenant situation in Israel. In other words, even 
if she's not his favorite, he cannot take from her cupboard, 
he cannot take from her closet, and he cannot take from her marriage 
bed. Which incidentally, brethren, this is at least fundamentally 
involved in every husband's duty or responsibility to their wives. You need to make sure they've 
got food in their cupboards, clothes in their closets, and 
conjugal relationship in their marriage bed. That's the emphasis 
in verse 10. Again, you see the protection 
involved for this woman. She's sold by a poor father. She's sold into a situation that's 
probably scary, that's probably difficult, and yet the law is 
structured in such a way to protect her within that environment, 
to protect her in whatever eventuality may face her. If the guy that 
bought her doesn't really like her, he's still got moral obligations 
to her. If he bought her for his son 
and that son has an additional wife, or if the man himself takes 
her and keeps her and has an additional wife, that does not 
mean she gets shorted or she gets gypped relative to cupboard, 
closet, or marriage bed. You cannot diminish that. You 
cannot take that away. Now notice the final statement 
in verse 11, and if she, or if he rather, does not do these 
three for her. Now I think the most obvious 
or the most common interpretation would be the three things in 
verse 10. If he does not provide for her cupboard, closet, and 
marriage bed, then she shall go out free without paying money. 
I don't think it's that. I think it has to do with the 
larger context. If he doesn't allow her to be 
redeemed, if he doesn't provide her for his son, and if he doesn't 
provide for her in light of the fact that she's an additional 
wife, then that obligation to remain in his employ is broken. She is free now to leave. If 
he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free 
without paying money. So the freedom to depart if he 
does not carry out these contractual obligations So at the first glance, 
we think, wow, that's barbaric. A man is buying a woman, and 
it just feels wrong. But when you start to investigate 
a little bit further, and you start to understand that this 
woman is, you know, not in a good way. She's got a poor father 
in Old Covenant Israel. not a lot of options for her, 
not a lot of Walmart she can work at, not a lot of colleges 
that are gonna take her, probably not a lot of men in her pool 
in terms of, you know, getting married, so this is the next 
best thing, and yet built into this are all of these protections 
for this particular woman, and if the man reneges on any of 
them, she is free to leave without having to pay, without having 
to, you know, pay some broken contract fee or anything like 
that. The Lord God is the champion of the vulnerable, He is the 
champion of the judicially innocent, and as we move through this Old 
Covenant law, we will see that on many, many, many, many occasions, 
that God's law is not the barbaric thing it is sold to us as, but 
it rather is an expression of His wisdom, and of His goodness, 
and of His kindness, and again, His ability to redress those 
things that have come in a post-fall world. The Bible legislates concerning 
divorce. That doesn't mean go out and 
get divorced. The Bible legislates concerning polygamy. That doesn't 
mean go out and multiply wives. The Bible legislates with reference 
to slavery. That doesn't mean go get slaves. 
The Bible legislates because in a post-fall world, men engage 
in these sorts of things. Remember when Jesus is confronted 
by the Pharisees in Matthew 19. Is it lawful for a man to divorce 
his wife for any reason whatsoever? What does Jesus do? He points 
back to the original creation. He says, Moses permitted a bill of divorce 
to be written. What's the point? If you were 
in a pre-fall situation, there'd be no divorce laws. There'd be 
no slavery laws. There'd be no polygamy laws. 
There would be no laws regulating warfare. There'd be no laws that 
we find much laws concerning if the world was not fallen. 
But when the world fell into sin, God, in kindness, gave law 
to restrict the wicked, the outwardly vile, from exploiting the vulnerable 
and the weak. These laws are designed to protect. These laws are designed to keep 
the body politic in order without abuse and without the sorts of 
things that are commonplace in, say, a society like ours. where 
there's oftentimes no sort of redress for people that are victimized, 
people that are brutalized in marriages and then just discarded. They don't have the sorts of 
things that this woman in Old Covenant Israel would have had. 
So in conclusion, we need to remember the function of judicial 
law. So, what we find in chapter 21, 
verse 1, now these are the judgments which you shall set before them, 
not just Exodus 21 to 23, but also the book of Deuteronomy. 
And again, there are judicial laws in Leviticus, but Leviticus 
is more heavy on ceremonial. You'll find more judicial in 
Exodus and in Deuteronomy. Those things were written to 
take the general principles of the Decalogue and apply them 
in concrete ways to the body politic. It was to govern the 
people for their tenure in the land, and it was to restrain 
the people from ultimately losing the Commonwealth. Now, obviously, 
the law without the Spirit does not effectively subdue the heart 
of man. And so when you read Leviticus 
26, and you read Deuteronomy 28, and you learn the promises 
of God in terms of curses for covenant breaking, well, that's 
exactly what happens. It happened in the 8th century 
with Assyria and the Northern Kingdom, it happened in the 6th 
century with Babylon and the Southern Kingdom, and it happened 
in the 1st century AD with Rome, and Israel as a whole. They broke 
the covenant, they ultimately gave up the commonwealth, they 
ultimately gave up or forfeit their status in terms of a theocratic 
nation under God. So the governing of the people 
and a restraint of the people from losing what they had. And 
then finally, when we go through this, we should appreciate the 
equity of God's law. I don't mean equity the way the 
modern commies are using equity, but in its real sense. Justness 
and righteousness. Even if you were a poor woman 
with a poor father who had to sell you into servanthood in 
order to make ends meet. There was redress in the law 
of God and protection in the law of God for one such as you. That is, in fact, equity. Well, I'll pray, and then if 
there's any questions or comments, we can talk about that. Father 
in heaven, we thank you for your Word. We thank you for the Old 
Testament law and what it teaches us concerning who you are, and 
as well, Lord God, what is good in terms of man's life in this 
present evil age. We ask that you would guide us 
and fill us with your Holy Spirit and help us to think clearly 
concerning the application of these things and grant us faithfulness, 
Lord God, to be walking in a manner that is worthy of the gospel 
of our salvation and help us to just continue to press on 
in this lower world. in a manner consistent with bringing 
glory to you. And we ask this through Christ 
our Lord. Amen. All right, any questions? Yes, 
sir. Well, I was just thinking as 
I was going through here, and I never really thought too much 
about it before, but between verse 6 and verse 7, I wonder 
if there's a distinction there, because it says in verse 7, So 
is that man, who do we take that man to be? Are we talking about 
the man that was sold to, the Hebrew servant that was sold 
to the master? I'm kind of thinking that this 
is a different person talking about here. It would have to 
be, because otherwise, why would we have to sell his daughter? 
That's right, that's right. It's a different scenario, yes. Yeah, 
it comes up, because that daughter would already be in that servant. She'd already be in that servant. 
Yes, good point, good point. I should have clarified that. 
Yeah, verse 7 starts a new section, actually. It moves from the limitation 
on service, the acquisition of a family during service, and 
now the eventuality of a female servant. That it's separate and 
disconnected from. I mean, it's connected because 
it's servants. But it's disconnected in that it's not from that family. 
Yes? I guess that a person, if they 
found themselves in debt rather I would say that on the subject 
of female welfare, for a lot of women, at least 
in the pre-modern period, than, for example, forced prostitution, 
as is the norm in many other cultures. And for that matter, 
the kind of deprivation that none of it produces. Because 
if we're saying that a master or a son is supposed to provide 
food, clothing, and relations, well, that's in contrast to vows 
of poverty and that sort of thing that you see in Romans. The only, 
one other point I should point out in verse four, presumably 
it would be a six year stint. So the guy I mentioned, he had 
options. He could go out and get another 
job, visit his family on the weekends, or he could make enough 
money to buy them out of that situation. But it would presumably 
only be six years, right? I mean, I don't know that. I 
think that would be a good way to understand that. I doubt that 
the family that was born in that particular condition would then 
be destined to lifelong servitude. It was probably capped by the 
six year as well. That would be my guess. So it 
would be tough, but you know, people have done it. But again, 
I think ideally, verse 5, what other gig does he have? His wife 
is there, his kids are there, they're eating, they're clothed, 
they're sleeping, it's a good system. And he obviously appreciates 
what he's got. All right, fun stuff.