Why does Exodus 21:4 permit keeping a wife and children as property? Text and Immediate Context Exodus 21:4 : “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and the man shall go free alone.” Verses 2–6 comprise a single case law on the release of a male Hebrew indentured servant after six years of service. The clause in v. 4 is the middle step in a three-part progression (v. 2 release, v. 3 family that came with him, v. 4 family acquired during service, v. 5–6 voluntary lifetime commitment). Historical and Cultural Background of Hebrew Servitude Israel’s servitude system functioned as debt-relief, not race-based chattel slavery. A destitute Hebrew could “sell himself” (Leviticus 25:39) for six years of labor to pay obligations and secure food, housing, and protection. Comparative law—e.g., Code of Hammurabi §§ 117, 175; Alalakh Tablets 17 & 25—shows similar contractual debt service widely practiced c. 18th–15th centuries BC. Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana) document release years typically of three to seven seasons; Israel’s fixed sixth-year liberation (Exodus 21:2) already surpasses contemporaries in humanitarian limitation. (Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, pp. 291-295) Protective, Not Prescriptive The statute regulates an existing economic practice; it does not command masters to divide families. Scripture often regulates fallen human conditions without endorsing them (cf. Matthew 19:8). By requiring release after six years, the law prevents perpetual bondage while still honoring the master’s legitimate ownership of any slave-wife he already possessed before giving her in marriage. Distinction from Chattel Slavery 1. Duration: fixed six-year maximum (Exodus 21:2). 2. Kinship: only Hebrews qualify for mandatory release; foreigners living among Israel retained legal protections (Leviticus 24:22). 3. Anti-kidnapping capital penalty (Exodus 21:16) eliminates slave-raiding that characterized later Atlantic slavery. Marriage Dynamics Inside Service The “wife” in v. 4 is herself a bondservant already owed to the master. Marriage does not negate her existing contract. Just as modern prisoners married to civilians do not thereby secure automatic release for the incarcerated spouse, so the servant’s marriage cannot confiscate the master’s separate property rights. Children follow the legal status of the mother in every Near-Eastern code—Israel included—because she is responsible for their early nurture and because her emancipation timing controls household economics (cf. Nuzi Tablet HSS 5:67). Voluntary Family Retention Option Exodus 21:5-6 provides a remedy driven by love, not coercion: “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children; I do not want to go free,’ … then he shall serve his master for life.” This preserves family unity when the bondservant values it above freedom, placing the decision entirely in his hands and formalizing it before judges (“elohim,” v. 6). Sabbatical and Jubilee Safeguards Leviticus 25:8-10 institutes the Jubilee, when all hereditary property returns and all Israelite slaves are freed regardless of previous contracts. Thus even a “lifetime” servant (Exodus 21:6) could serve no longer than 49 years, preventing multigenerational bondage. Theological Rationale: Redemption Memory Every legal paragraph in Exodus 21–23 is prefaced by Exodus 20:2—“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” Israel’s own deliverance becomes the moral template: no one may oppress a brother indefinitely (Deuteronomy 15:15). The mandatory release is an embodied memorial of Yahweh’s redemptive character. Progressive Revelation Culminating in Christ Old-Covenant servitude foreshadows the New-Covenant emancipation from sin (John 8:34-36; Galatians 4:7). Christ’s atonement fulfills the kinsman-redeemer motif (Mark 10:45). The apostle admonishes masters to regard servants as “brothers” (Philemon 16), planting the seed that historically toppled slavery in Christianized cultures (e.g., Wilberforce’s abolition campaign explicitly citing Exodus 21). Answering Objections 1. “Property” equals personhood denial? Not biblically. The same word “qanah” (to acquire) describes a husband “possessing” a wife (Ruth 4:10) or Yahweh “acquiring” Israel (Exodus 15:16). Economic responsibility, not ontological worth, is in view. 2. “Why didn’t God simply outlaw the practice?” Universal and immediate abolition in an ancient agrarian economy would have produced widespread insolvency and starvation. Instead, God institutes tiered, humane restrictions leading toward liberty, mirroring how He eradicates sin within redeemed history. Archaeological and Textual Corroboration Lachish Ostracon 3 (7th c. BC) records the release of a Hebrew bondservant at the Sabbath year. The Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446 (Middle Kingdom Egypt) lists Semitic household servants, confirming cultural continuity from Egypt to Canaan. Manuscript evidence (4QExod-Levf — Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd c. BC) aligns verbatim with MT Exodus 21:4, underscoring stable transmission. Ethical Implications for Modern Readers The statute challenges us to safeguard vulnerable workers, honor contractual obligations, and value family unity. Christians, indwelt by the Spirit, go beyond the letter: “Serve one another humbly in love” (Galatians 5:13). Christological Fulfillment Jesus takes the servant’s place, relinquishing His rightful freedom to join Himself to a bride (the Church) and purchase our permanent release (Isaiah 53:11; Revelation 1:5-6). Our response parallels Exodus 21:5—voluntary, love-motivated lifelong devotion. Conclusion Exodus 21:4 does not legitimize dehumanizing slavery; it restricts existing debt servitude, protects marital bonds, and embeds a redemptive trajectory completed in Christ. Properly understood, the verse showcases the justice, compassion, and forward-looking salvation plan of Yahweh. |
    |