How should modern Christians interpret the treatment of slaves in Exodus 21:20? Text of Exodus 21:20–21 “When a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod and the servant dies at his hand, he must be punished. 21 However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property.” Historical–Linguistic Context The Hebrew term ʿeḇeḏ can denote “slave,” “servant,” or “bond-laborer.” In patriarchal culture it embraced a spectrum from forced laborers taken in war (Genesis 14:21) to voluntarily indentured Hebrews working off debt (Exodus 21:2–6; Deuteronomy 15:12–18). The semantic range prevents importing the trans-Atlantic chattel model into the text. Archaeological comparisons—e.g., the Code of Hammurabi §196–§198 (ca. 1750 BC), Middle Assyrian Laws A §50–§52 (ca. 1400 BC), and Hittite Laws §14 (ca. 1600–1200 BC)—all treat slaves as disposable property with only economic penalties for murder. Exodus uniquely introduces a lex talionis principle (“he must be punished,” nāqam yinnāqēm) that places the slave under the protection of divine justice, an ethical leap recognized by ANE scholars (K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the OT, p. 291). The Legal Principle in View Verse 20 legislates capital culpability (“he must be punished”) for lethal violence. The verb nāqam in comparable passages (Exodus 21:12; Leviticus 24:17) demands death for the killer. Thus Mosaic law criminalizes murder of a slave as murder of any other human (Genesis 9:6), overturning prevailing Near-Eastern norms. Verse 21 regulates situations where intent to kill is ambiguous. If the servant recovers sufficiently to “stand” within 48 hours, the court infers non-intentionality and withholds lex talionis. This mirrors later “manslaughter” provisions (Numbers 35:22–24). Importantly, it does not portray the slave as mere chattel; the owner has already lost economic value and is still open to suit for injury (vv. 26–27). Theological Foundations a. Imago Dei: Genesis 1:27 and Job 31:13–15 declare ontological equality. Mosaic casuistic law applies creation theology to specific social realities, anticipating full relational redemption (Galatians 3:28). b. Covenantal Concession vs. Creational Ideal: Jesus’ discussion of divorce (Matthew 19:8) shows some Mosaic statutes were regulative concessions to fallen structures, “because of your hardness of heart,” while creation’s moral ideal remained monogamous fidelity. Likewise, Exodus 21 regulates a slave system already in existence rather than endorsing it as forever ideal. c. Progressive Revelation: Later prophets undermine slavery’s permanence (Isaiah 58:6), culminating in Christ who “came to proclaim liberty to the captives” (Luke 4:18). Paul seeds manumission into the gospel (1 Corinthians 7:21; Phlm 15–17). Ethical Trajectory Toward Freedom Exodus implodes absolute mastery by: • Requiring release of Hebrew bond-servants in year 7 (21:2). • Forbidding extradition of runaway slaves (Deuteronomy 23:15–16), unique in the ancient world. • Mandating lavish severance (Deuteronomy 15:14). • Penalizing permanent physical injury with mandated emancipation (Exodus 21:26–27). These statutes create financial disincentives for abuse, align with the Jubilee ideal (Leviticus 25), and point toward New-Covenant liberty realized historically in Christian-led abolition (e.g., William Wilberforce referencing 1 Timothy 1:10 against “man-stealers,” House of Commons, 25 March 1807). Addressing the Phrase “the servant is his property” The Hebrew kaspô hû’ literally “he is his money,” stresses indemnity: the owner already suffers economic loss, therefore the court need not exact additional compensation if no fatality occurred. It does not nullify the servant’s personhood; vv. 26–27 prove otherwise, granting freedom for lost tooth or eye—a remedy unheard of in Hammurabi, Assyria, or later Greco-Roman codes (cf. Gaius, Institutes 1.52). Consistency with the New Testament Christ’s ethic of self-giving service (Mark 10:45) transforms hierarchical structures (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1). Paul’s Letter to Philemon exemplifies application: appealing to brotherhood over coercion. Early church fathers (e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. on Eccl. 4) condemned slavery as sin against creation’s order, drawing directly from Exodus trajectory. Pastoral Application for Modern Christians • Distinguish descriptive regulation from prescriptive endorsement. • Recognize Scripture’s redemptive-movement hermeneutic driving toward justice and equality. • Oppose any modern exploitation (human trafficking, forced labor) as violations of the law of Christ (James 2:8). • Embrace sacrificial stewardship, modeling Christ’s servant-leadership in societal reform. Conclusion Exodus 21:20 does not endorse modern slavery. It erects legal constraints that humanize servants, curb violence, and set an ethical trajectory culminating in Christ’s redemptive liberation. Modern Christians, therefore, interpret the passage as a historically rooted, justice-oriented regulation affirming the servant’s full dignity while foreshadowing the gospel’s ultimate emancipation of every believer. |
    |