Exodus 21 explained: Laws on Servants, Violence and Harm

Hebrew servants go free (vv. 1-6)

A fellow Hebrew bought as a servant, usually because of poverty or debt, worked six years and then went free, though a wife the master had given him and their children stayed behind. If he chose to stay with them, the master brought him to God or to the judges (the Hebrew word can mean either, so translations differ) and pierced his ear at a door as a sign he would serve for life.

Daughters sold as servants (vv. 7-11)

A poor father could sell his daughter into a household, apparently as a future wife for the master or his son, and she did not go free after six years as male servants did. If the master rejected her, her family could buy her back but he could never sell her to foreigners, and if he denied her food, clothing or marital rights (that last Hebrew word is rare and its meaning debated), she went free without payment.

Crimes punished by death (vv. 12-17)

Deliberate murder, kidnapping, and striking or cursing one's father or mother all carried the death penalty. Someone who killed without meaning to, a death the text attributes to God's hand (translations word this differently), could flee to a place of safety, later the cities of refuge, but a planned murderer could be taken even from the altar, where people in danger sought protection.

Fights and beaten slaves (vv. 18-21)

Someone who injured another in a fight, without killing them, had to pay for the work they lost and for their full recovery. A master whose beating killed a slave on the spot was to be punished, though the text does not say how, but not if the slave lived a day or two, and the text states the reason bluntly: the slave was the owner's property.

Pregnant woman, eye for eye (vv. 22-27)

Verse 22 may describe a miscarriage (the traditional Jewish reading and many translations) or a premature birth (many other modern translations). The ancient Greek translation used by Orthodox churches reads it another way, asking whether the lost child was fully formed. So readers differ on whether the further harm in verse 23 covers the child or only the mother. 'Eye for eye' told judges to match the penalty to the harm and go no further, and Jewish tradition applied it as payment of equal value, while a slave who lost an eye or a tooth to a master's blow went free.

Dangerous animals and open pits (vv. 28-36)

An ox that killed a person was stoned and its meat left uneaten, and an owner warned that it was dangerous could face death unless he paid to redeem his life; if the victim was a slave, the slave's master received thirty shekels (a set weight) of silver. The same idea of answering for carelessness covers uncovered pits and fights between oxen, and similar rules about goring oxen appear in older law codes from the region.

Key verse: Exodus 21:24

Where Christians differ

Christians differ on what laws like these mainly show: many read them as God limiting harsh practices people already had, such as slavery, while others read them more plainly as accepting those practices for that time, and churches also differ on what, if anything, in them still applies today.

Something to think about

When a rule limits a harm but still permits it, as these laws do with slavery, how would you judge whether that rule is a step forward or part of the problem?