Tyndale Open Study NotesExodus 21

The Sinai covenant follows closely the pattern of treaties made in the ancient Near East. In those treaties, a great king made an agreement with smaller nations. The great king was called a suzerain (a powerful ruler). The smaller nations were called vassals (people or nations under his rule).

These treaties usually followed a clear structure:

1. The treaty began with an introduction. This section named the great king who was offering the covenant (20:1).

2. Next came a historical preamble (an introduction that explains past events). This section described what had already happened between the king and the people (20:2).

   In Exodus, God reminds Israel that he brought them out of slavery in Egypt. This shows why he has the right to make a covenant with them.

3. Then the treaty listed the stipulations (the required terms of the agreement). These explained what each side promised to do. In ancient treaties, the king promised protection from enemies and help in times of danger. The people promised loyalty and obedience.

   In Exodus, the basic terms of the covenant appear in 20:3–17. These verses include the Ten Commandments. The laws are explained further in chapters 21–23.

4. The treaty also explained where the written copy should be kept and when it should be read publicly (24:7; 25:16). This ensured that future generations would remember the covenant.

5. Ancient treaties called on the gods to witness the agreement. In Exodus, instead of calling on pagan gods, historical events and written records serve as witnesses (24:4). This shows that Israel’s covenant was different from pagan treaties.

6. Finally, treaties listed blessings and curses. Blessings would follow obedience. Curses would follow disobedience (23:20–33). This made it clear that the covenant had real consequences.

God used the familiar political treaty form of the ancient world. However, he removed pagan religious elements that were common at that time.

Through this covenant, God invited Israel into a formal relationship with himself as their king.

The Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament parallels this section of Exodus (Matthew 5:1–7:29). The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3–12) correspond in some ways to the Ten Commandments.

Both passages describe how God’s people should live under his rule.

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).

The statements in this section follow the usual case-law pattern used in ancient Near Eastern law codes (legal collections from the lands around Israel). This pattern begins with a possible situation introduced by the word “if.” The next part explains what should happen and begins with the word “then.”

In these chapters, some laws are grouped together. However, the text does not clearly separate personal, civil, and ceremonial laws. These types of laws appear side by side.

This shows that, for God, life is not divided into separate parts. All of life is lived in relationship with him. Every action shows whether a person is living in loving obedience to God or in resistance against him.

The terms of the covenant are now expanded. The first section in 21:1–23:19 gives specific examples of the general principles stated in 20:3–17. The commitments to which God bound himself if the Israelites kept their side of the covenant are stated in 23:20–33. This passage also includes the blessings for obedience.

A man might sell himself into slavery in order to get money to pay his debts. This law states that the man was never to become the permanent property of the master.

If a man and a wife went into slavery together, they were also to go free together.

The master was not required to provide a slave with a wife who would then be freed with him. The slave in such a situation had to either abandon the family he began while he was a slave or become a permanent slave.

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.

The crimes of murder, kidnapping, and cursing or striking one’s parents were punished by death. A person who committed murder gave up his own right to live. Human life is very precious in God’s sight.

Even when a death was accidental, it could not simply be ignored. However, the law made a difference between murder and accidental killing.

God provided places of refuge (see Numbers 35:6–28). These were special towns where a person who killed someone by accident could flee. There, the family of the dead person could not take revenge (see also study notes on Numbers 35:6–34).

take him away from My altar: See 1 Kings 2:28–33.

Anyone who curses: See study note on Leviticus 20:9; see also Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; 21:18–21; Ephesians 6:1–4.

These laws governed compensation for injuries that did not lead to death.

her child is born prematurely: It appears that if a child’s birth was caused prematurely and the child died (that is, there was further injury), the penalty for murder was to be enacted. The law of retaliation (the lex talionis) called for a penalty that matched the injury inflicted on a victim. But this law also served to limit the punishment so it was not more severe than the original injury. Compare Matthew 5:38–39.

If an animal caused a person’s death and the owner was judged to be negligent, the relatives of the deceased could demand the death penalty for both the animal and its owner. However, that penalty was not mandatory, and the relatives could elect to accept compensation (21:30).

In cases involving loss of property, the responsible person had to pay compensation equal to the value of what was lost. If the person had actually stolen the property, the compensation was multiplied (22:1, 4, 7). Where there was a question of responsibility, the parties were to appear before God for adjudication (22:8). The means by which the judgment was reached is not reported.