Exodus 21:9

A female slave was treated differently from a male slave. She may have been sold with the expectation that she would become a concubine (a secondary wife). Releasing her after seven years would not necessarily protect her.

If she were sent away, she might have to return to her father. Her father had already sold her, which suggests he did not want her. Marriage would also be unlikely for a former concubine. She might even be forced into prostitution. For this reason, it was often considered better for her to remain in her master’s household.

Sometimes a man bought a girl to become his son’s wife (21:9). In that case, the payment was not the price of a slave. It was similar to a bride-price (a gift given to a bride’s family at marriage). In the ancient Near East, a young man usually gave money or valuable gifts to the bride’s father (see 22:16; Genesis 24:53). A woman for whom a bride-price had been paid was not considered a slave.

Slavery was common in the ancient world. Sometimes, it was the only option for people who were very poor. Many slaves believed the gods had abandoned them. Because the Lord cares for those in this difficult situation, his followers must also care.

In time, the message that Jesus Christ died for all people everywhere changed how believers viewed slavery. If Christ died for everyone, then all people have equal value before God.

This truth made slavery impossible to defend in the long term (Galatians 3:28).

LAWS FOR MAIDSERVANTS. (Exo. 21:7-36)

if a man sell his daughter--Hebrew girls might be redeemed for a reasonable sum. But in the event of her parents or friends being unable to pay the redemption money, her owner was not at liberty to sell her elsewhere. Should she have been betrothed to him or his son, and either change their minds, a maintenance must be provided for her suitable to her condition as his intended wife, or her freedom instantly granted.

The first verse is the general title of the laws contained in this and the two following chapters, some of them relating to the religious worship of God, but most of them relating to matters between man and man. Their government being purely a Theocracy, that which in other states is to be settled by human prudence was directed among them by a divine appointment, so that the constitution of their government was peculiarly adapted to make them happy. These laws are called judgments, because they are framed in infinite wisdom and equity, and because their magistrates were to give judgment according to the people. In the doubtful cases that had hitherto occurred, Moses had particularly enquired of God for them, as appeared, Exo 18:15; but now God gave him statutes in general by which to determine particular cases, which likewise he must apply to other like cases that might happen, which, falling under the same reason, fell under the same rule. He begins with the laws concerning servants, commanding mercy and moderation towards them. The Israelites had lately been servants themselves; and now that they had become, not only their own masters, but masters of servants too, lest they should abuse their servants, as they themselves had been abused and ruled with rigour by the Egyptian task-masters, provision was made by these laws for the mild and gentle usage of servants. Note, If those who have had power over us have been injurious to us this will not in the least excuse us if we be in like manner injurious to those who are under our power, but will rather aggravate our crime, because, in that case, we may the more easily put our souls into their soul's stead. Here is,
I. A law concerning men-servants, sold, either by themselves or their parents, through poverty, or by the judges, for their crimes; even those of the latter sort (if Hebrews) were to continue in slavery but seven years at the most, in which time it was taken for granted that they would sufficiently have smarted for their folly or offence. At the seven years' end the servant should either go out free (Exo 21:2, Exo 21:3), or his servitude should thenceforward be his choice, Exo 21:5, Exo 21:6. If he had a wife given him by his master, and children, he might either leave them and go out free himself, or, if he had such a kindness for them that he would rather tarry with them in bondage than go out at liberty without them, he was to have his ear bored through to the doorpost and serve till the death of his master, or the year of jubilee.
1. By this law God taught, (1.) The Hebrew servants generosity, and a noble love of liberty, for they were the Lord's freemen; a mark of disgrace must be put upon him who refused liberty when he might have it, though he refused it upon considerations otherwise laudable enough. Thus Christians, being bought with a price, and called unto liberty, must not be the servants of men, nor of the lusts of men, Co1 7:23. There is a free and princely spirit that much helps to uphold a Christian, Psa 51:12. He likewise taught, (2.) The Hebrew masters not to trample upon their poor servants, knowing, not only that they had been by birth upon a level with them, but that, in a few years, they would be so again. Thus Christian masters must look with respect on believing servants, Plm 1:16.
2. This law will be further useful to us, (1.) To illustrate the right God has to the children of believing parents, as such, and the place they have in his church. They are by baptism enrolled among his servants, because they are born in his house, for they are therefore born unto him, Eze 16:20. David owns himself God's servant, as he was the son of his handmaid (Psa 116:16), and therefore entitled to protection, Psa 86:16. (2.) To explain the obligation which the great Redeemer laid upon himself to prosecute the work of our salvation, for he says (Psa 40:6), My ears hast thou opened, which seems to allude to this law. He loved his Father, and his captive spouse, and the children that were given him, and would not go out free from his undertaking, but engaged to serve in it for ever, Isa 42:1, Isa 42:4. Much more reason have we thus to engage ourselves to serve God for ever; we have all the reason in the world to love our Master and his work, and to have our ears bored to his door-posts, as those who desire not to go out free from his service, but to be found more and more free to it, and in it, Psa 84:10.
Concerning maid-servants, whom their parents, through extreme poverty, had sold, when they were very young, to such as they hoped would marry them when they grew up; if they did not, yet they must not sell them to strangers, but rather study how to make them amends for the disappointment; if they did, they must maintain them handsomely, Exo 21:7-11. Thus did God provide for the comfort and reputation of the daughters of Israel, and has taught husbands to give honour to their wives (be their extraction ever so mean) as to the weaker vessels, Pe1 3:7.

Exodus 21:7-11

7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.

7. Quum vendiderit quispiam filiam suam in ancillam, non egredietur quemadmodum egredi solent servi.

8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

8. Si displicuerit hero suo, nec sibi desponderit eam, redimendam curabit: populo alieno non habebit potestatem vendendi eam, quum spreverit eam.

9. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

9. Quod si filio suo desponderit eam, secundum morem filiarum faciet ei.

10. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

10. Si aliam acceperit sibi, alimentum illius, operimentum illius, et constitutionem illius non diminuet.

11. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

11. Quod si tria haec non fecerit illi, egredietur gratis absque argento.

From this passage, as well as other similar ones, it plainly appears how many vices were of necessity tolerated in this people. It was altogether an act of barbarism that fathers should sell their children for the relief of their poverty, still it could not be corrected as might have been hoped. Again, the sanctity of the marriage-vow should have been greater than that it should be allowable for a master to repudiate his bond-maid, after he had betrothed her to himself as his wife; or, when he had betrothed her to his son, to make void that covenant, which is inviolable: for that principle ought ever to hold good -- "Those whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9.) Yet liberty was accorded to the ancient people in all these particulars; only provision is here made that the poor girls should not suffer infamy and injury from their repudiation. But, although God is gracious in remitting the punishment, still He shows that chastity is pleasing to Him, as far as the people's hardness of heart permitted. First of all, He does not allow a master to seduce his purchased maid-servant, but if he wishes to enjoy her embraces, a marriage must take place; for although He does not set this out in express terms, still we may infer from what He condemns, that the contrary is what He approves. From whence, too, their notion is refuted who suppose that fornication was lawful under the Law. But the words must be more closely examined on account of their ambiguity. First, the sex is treated with consideration, that the condition of a female may be somewhat more favorable than that of a male; since, otherwise, their weakness would render young women subject to injury and shame. An explanation then follows, respecting which, however, interpreters differ; for some read the particle l', [74] lo, which is properly negative, for lv, lo; and hence arise two opposite meanings -- If he hath, or hath not, betrothed her to himself. If it be preferred to take it affirmatively, the meaning of the precept will be: If a master shall repudiate his bond-maid, whom he has loved and destined to be his wife, he must give her her liberty; for although literally it is, "he shall cause her to be redeemed," yet; the context shows that the obligation of setting her free is laid upon him; nor is this contradicted by the fact that he is only deprived of the power of selling her to a strange people; since I do not understand this as applying to foreigners only, but to others of his own nation, since sometimes those of another tribe or family are called strangers. For, even though there were no marriage-compact, it was not otherwise lawful to sell slaves of the holy and elect people to foreigners. Besides, amongst the Israelites, slavery was only temporary. But, to pass by everything else, let it suffice to observe the absurdity that a master should hold his wife as a slave to be sold at pleasure, if their opinion is received who suppose that the words refer to repudiation after betrothal. [75] I myself rather approve of the other opinion, that, although the master shall not have aspired to matrimony with her, if her appearance displeases him so that he would be unwilling to have her as his wife, at least he must provide for her redemption; because her chastity would be in jeopardy if she remained with him unmarried; unless perhaps Moses may signify that, after she had been seduced, her master did not honor her with marriage. But the other view which I have just expressed is more simple; and a caution is given lest masters should seduce their maid-servants at their pleasure. Thus the word despise [76] does not refer to repudiation, but is opposed to beauty, or conjugal love.

The next case is, that if he should betroth her to his son, (he must give her a dowry, [77] ) in which, also, her modesty and honor is consulted, lest she should be oppressed by the right of ownership, and become a harlot. In the third place, it is provided that, if she should be repudiated, her condition should not be disadvantageous. If, therefore, he would make her his daughter-in-law, and betroth her to his son, he is commanded to deal liberally with her; for "after the manner of daughters" is equivalent to giving her a dowry, or, at any rate, to treating her as if she were free. Finally, he adds that, if he should choose another wife for his son, he should not reject the former one, nor defraud her of her food and raiment, or of some third thing, concerning which translators are not well agreed. Some render it time, but I do not see what is the meaning of diminishing her time; others, duty of marriage, but this is too free a translation; others, more correctly, affliction, since the girl would be humiliated by her repudiation; still, to diminish affliction, is too harsh an expression for to compensate an injury. Let my readers, then, consider whether the word, nth, gnonathah, is not used for compact or agreement; for thus the context will run very well: If his son have married another wife, that the girl who has suffered ignominious rejection should obtain her rights as to food, and raiment, and her appointed dowry; otherwise, God commands that she should be set free gratuitously, in order that her liberty may compensate for the wrong she has received.

Footnotes:

[73] This passage also taken further on in Fr.

[74] The Hebrew text has l', not, but with a mark of doubt as to the genuineness of the reading, and the Masoretic note directs the substitution of lv, to him C. follows S. M. in adhering to the text, whilst our A. V. and the LXX. reject not, in accordance with the Masora. -- W

[75] This sentence is omitted in Ft., and the following substituted: "Ce mot doncques ou il est dit, Qu'il ne la pourra vendre a des estrangers, est entrelasse, pour monstrer, qu'il n'y eust eu nulle raison qu'il vendist celle qu'il a abusee de vaine esperance;" this sentence, then, in which it is said that he may not sell her to strangers, is inserted to show that there was no reason why he should sell her whom he has abused with vain hopes.

[76] A. V., "If she please not." Margin, "Heb., Be evil in the eyes of, etc."

[77] Added from Fr., in which there is much verbal difference here.

Betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her - He shall give her the same dowry he would give to one of his own daughters. From these laws we learn, that if a man's son married his servant, by his father's consent, the father was obliged to treat her in every respect as a daughter; and if the son married another woman, as it appears he might do, Exo 21:10, he was obliged to make no abatement in the privileges of the first wife, either in her food, raiment, or duty of marriage. The word ענתה onathah, here, is the same with St. Paul's οφειλομενην ευνοιαν, the marriage debt, and with the ὁμιλιαν of the Septuagint, which signifies the cohabitation of man and wife.

And if he have betrothed her unto his son,.... Not caring to betroth and marry her himself, as being more suitable in age for his son than for himself:

he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters; as if she was his daughter, and give her a dowry: or the son shall treat her after the manner the daughters of Israel are treated when married, by giving her food, raiment, and the duty of marriage, so Jarchi: or after the manner of the daughters of Israel that are virgins, and who are not sold, as Aben Ezra.

i.e. Give her a convenient portion, as he doth to his own daughters, .

The daughter of an Israelite, who had been sold by her father as a maid-servant (לאמה), i.e., as the sequel shows, as a housekeeper and concubine, stood in a different relation to her master's house. She was not to go out like the men-servants, i.e., not to be sent away as free at the end of six years of service; but the three following regulations, which are introduced by אם (Exo 21:8), ואם (Exo 21:9), and ואם (Exo 21:11), were to be observed with regard to her. In the first place (Exo 21:8), "if she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed." The לא before יעדהּ is one of the fifteen cases in which לא has been marked in the Masoretic text as standing for לו; and it cannot possibly signify not in the passage before us. For if it were to be taken as a negative, "that he do not appoint her," sc., as a concubine for himself, the pronoun לו would certainly not be omitted. הפדּהּ (for הפדּהּ, see Ges. 53, Note 6), to let her be redeemed, i.e., to allow another Israelite to buy her as a concubine; for there can hardly have been any thought of redemption on the part of the father, as it would no doubt be poverty alone that caused him to sell his daughter (Lev 25:39). But "to sell her unto a strange nation (i.e., to any one but a Hebrew), he shall have no power, if he acts unfaithfully towards her," i.e., if he do not grant her the promised marriage. In the second place (Exo 21:9, Exo 21:10), "if he appoint her as his son's wife, he shall act towards her according to the rights of daughters," i.e., treat her as a daughter; "and if he take him (the son) another (wife), - whether because the son was no longer satisfied, or because the father gave the son another wife in addition to her - "her food (שׁאר flesh as the chief article of food, instead of לחם, bread, because the lawgiver had persons of property in his mind, who were in a position to keep concubines), her raiment, and her duty of marriage he shall not diminish," i.e., the claims which she had as a daughter for support, and as his son's wife for conjugal rights, were not to be neglected; he was not to allow his son, therefore, to put her away or treat her badly. With this explanation the difficulties connected with every other are avoided. For instance, if we refer the words of Exo 21:9 to the son, and understand them as meaning, "if the son should take another wife," we introduce a change of subject without anything to indicate it. If, on the other hand, we regard them as meaning, "if the father (the purchaser) should take to himself another wife," this ought to have come before Exo 21:9. In the third place (Exo 21:11), "if he do not (do not grant) these three unto her, she shall go out for nothing, without money." "These three" are food, clothing, and conjugal rights, which are mentioned just before; not "si eam non desponderit sibi nec filio, nec redimi sit passus" (Rabbins and others), nor "if he did not give her to his son as a concubine, but diminished her," as Knobel explains it.