Chapter 21

1 Laws for menservants. 5 For the servant whose ear is bored. 7 For womenservants. 12 For manslaughter. 16 For stealers of men. 17 For cursers of parents. 18 For smiters. 22 For a hurt by chance. 28 For an ox that goreth. 33 For him that is an occasion of harm.

1. Judgments. That is, ordinances by which justice (judgment) was to be administered. Though many of these Mosaic laws were undoubtedly old ones that had been in force for some time, all were now to be enforced with divine approval. Some provisions may have come from judicial decisions rendered by Moses in the wilderness (ch. 18:16). All of these civil laws breathed the spirit of the moral law; they reflected and applied the principles of the Ten Commandments.

These civil ordinances were based upon and dealt with social customs of the day. In some points the ordinances simply reaffirm legal practices already in effect. Some of them are similar to laws of the Code of Hammurabi (see Additional Note at close of chapter). It may seem out of keeping with our concept of the character of God that He should at least tacitly approve of such things as servitude, concubinage, and seemingly harsh forms of punishment. However, it should be remembered that in bringing the Hebrew people forth from the land of Egypt God took them as they were, with the purpose of gradually making them over into what He wanted them to be—fit representatives of Himself.

Though the new birth imparts to a man new ideals and divine power for attaining them, it does not bring instantaneous understanding of the fullness of God’s ideal for man. The understanding of, and the attaining to, that ideal are the work of a lifetime (see John 1:12; Gal. 3:13, 14; 2 Peter 3:18). God does not work a miracle to accomplish this in a moment of time, particularly when the habits in question are matters of general custom and practice. Were He to do so there could be no character development. For this reason God takes people as He finds them, and through the increasingly clearer revelation of His will leads them ever onward to loftier ideals. Thus, with some of the civil laws given at Sinai, God for the time being permitted certain customs to continue but erected a safeguard against their abuse. Final abandonment of the customs themselves came later. This principle of an increasingly clearer and more complete revelation of God’s will was enunciated by Christ (Matt. 19:7–9; John 15:22; 16:13; Acts 17:30; 1 Tim. 1:13).

2. An Hebrew servant. There was to be no such thing as permanent involuntary servitude for a Hebrew slave to a Hebrew master (Lev. 25:25–55). However, because slavery was a universal, established institution, God permitted its practice, yet at the same time sought to mitigate the evils that accompanied it. In heathen countries slaves were usually regarded more as chattels than as men. This was the more reprehensible since slavery did not necessarily imply any mental or moral fault in the slave. Slaves often proved to be more intelligent and capable than their masters. The great majority of those suffering involuntary servitude were either born in it or made so by the fortunes of war. Thus, slavery was not commonly a deserved punishment but more often an undeserved misfortune. These unfortunates had no political rights and only a few social privileges, yet often they were bound to a master who was in all points their interior. Their families might at any time be broken up and divided among other owners. They were subject to unmerciful beatings, without redress, unless perhaps in cases of serious injury. The most severe labor might be required of them, in workshops little better than prisons, in unhealthful mines, or chained to the oars of galleys for backbreaking service through endless years.

In contrast, the Lord carefully protected the rights of Hebrew slaves, and even made the lot of foreign slaves far more pleasant than was the case elsewhere. Harsh treatment was definitely prohibited (Lev. 25:43). To the master the slave was still “thy brother” (Deut. 15:12; Philemon 16). Furthermore, upon payment of the unexpired portion of the sale price the master was required to release a slave (Lev. 25:48–52). The spirit of these laws relative to slaves is the same as that stated by Paul in Col. 4:1, and expressed by him upon sending the Christian slave Onesimus back to his Christian master Philemon (Philemon 8–16).

In spirit the law of Moses is opposed to slavery. Its emphasis on the dignity of man as made in the image of God, its recognition of the descent of all mankind from one pair, contained in principle the affirmation of every human right (see Lev. 25:39–42; Lev. 26:11–13). The Israelites commonly became “slaves” to their own race through poverty (Lev. 25:35, 39), and sometimes through crime (Ex. 22:3). Children were at times sold in settlement of a debt (2 Kings 4:1–7). Later, through the fortunes of war, they were carried away as slaves to foreign lands (2 Kings 5:2, 3).

In the seventh. This does not refer to the sabbatical year (Ex. 23:11; Lev. 25:4), but to the beginning of the seventh year after the man became a slave (Deut. 15:12). When the year of jubilee arrived, a Hebrew slave was to be released, irrespective of how many years he had served Lev. 25:40). Otherwise, his servitude ended at the close of the sixth year. Not only was his master to grant him his freedom but he was obligated to furnish him with provisions from the flock, the threshing floor, and the wine press Deut. 15:12–15) in order that he might be able to begin life anew. Thus, in the first of the civil laws we find beneficent provisions whose humanitarian spirit characterizes all Mosaic legislation. No other nation of antiquity treated its slaves in this kindly fashion.

3. By himself. That is, single, unmarried.

4. Given him a wife. If on becoming a slave the man was single or a widower, and if his master gave him a female slave to wife, the master was not to lose the female slave, his property, by so doing. In this case the husband would be released from his servitude alone. Children born to a slave marriage were to be the property of the master, and were to remain as members of his household.

5. I love my master. Inasmuch as Hebrew slavery was mild and sympathetic in nature Lev. 25:39, 40, 43), it was not unusual for affection to spring up between the owner and the slave. Even among pagans there were such instances. Love might even make the conditions of servitude seem preferable to freedom. The cords of affection bind more closely than any other bonds, but they do not confine or fetter.

6. Bring him to the door. Upon the slave’s resolution not to go free, the master was to bring him before the “judges” (literally, “unto God”), who, as representatives of God, dispensed justice and served as witnesses to legal transactions such as this. Boring the ear through to the doorpost, thus attaching him physically, as it were, to the house, made him a permanent inmate of the household, marking him as such as long as he should live. The pierced ear testified to the pierced heart. The sign of slavery became the badge of love. So it was with our Lord as the suffering “servant” (Isa. 42:1; Isa. 53:10, 11), who for the love He bore His earthborn sons and daughters (Heb. 12:2, 3), was highly exalted (see Phil. 2:7–9; Heb. 5:8, 9).

For ever. From Фolam, literally, “hidden time,” that is, time of indefinite duration. Its limits are either unknown or not specified, and must be determined by the nature of the person, thing, or circumstance to which it is applied. In the absolute sense, as applied to God, Фolam, “everlasting” Gen. 21:33), means “eternal,” for God is eternal—without beginning or end. In a more restricted sense the resurrected saints enter into Фolam, “everlasting life” (Dan. 12:2), which, although it has a beginning, is without end, owing to the bestowal of immortality. In a still more limited sense, Фolam can have both a definite beginning and a definite end, either of which may be uncertain at the time of speaking. For instance, Jonah was in the belly of the fish “for ever” (Jonah 2:6) because at the time he did not know when, if ever, he would get out again. In this case “for ever” turned out to be only “three days and three nights” (Jonah 1:17).

Our English words always and forever do not of themselves imply time without beginning or without end. It might, for instance, be said of a man that he always lived in the valley of his birth. The fact that eventually he died there in no way invalidates the statement that he always lived there. Similarly, at marriage, husband and wife promise to be true to each other forever, meaning so long as they both shall live. If upon the death of one the other should remarry, no one would accuse him of breaking the vow made at his first marriage. It is no more justifiable to read into the Hebrew word Фolam more than the context implies.

As for the slave, he had already served his master for a definite, limited period of six years. Now, by his own choice, he was to begin a term of service of indefinite duration. Obviously, the agreement would terminate at least with the death of the slave, which event could of course not be predicted. This indefinite term of service is therefore appropriately described as Фolam, which would here be more accurately rendered as “in perpetuity.”

Translators of the LXX rendered the Hebrew word Фolam as aioµn, its Greek equivalent. What has been said of Фolam is equally true of aioµn. The attempt to determine the length of time involved, or to assign to the person or thing described the quality of continuing endlessly, on the basis of Фolam or aioµn, is entirely unjustified. In each instance, the duration of Фolam or aioµn depends solely on the context in which it is used, particularly on the nature of the person or thing to which the word is applied.

7. Sell his daughter. Among ancient nations the authority of a father was generally so absolute that he could sell his own children as slaves. Herodotus tells us that the Thracians made a regular practice of selling daughters. At one time, according to Plutarch, the sale of children was common in Athens. Female slaves were usually bought to serve as concubines, or secondary wives, of their masters.

8. If she please not. If the one who purchased the female slave should refuse to make her his concubine, or secondary wife, then, literally, “he shall allow her redemption.” He was to look for someone to buy her from him and so relieve him of the marriage obligation (v. 11; cf. Lev. 25:48).

He shall have no power. Both the first purchaser and the one who “redeemed” her must be Hebrews and not foreigners. No Hebrew was ever to marry a foreigner (Deut. 7:1–3). By promising to make the girl his secondary wife and failing to do so, her first purchaser “dealt deceitfully,” that is, violated his promise.

9. Unto his son. The master might have originally secured the female slave for this purpose, or not finding her satisfactory for himself (see v. 8), he might have given her to his son. In either case she was to have the status of a daughter in the family.

10. Another wife. If, besides taking this female slave as a secondary wife for himself, the master later takes another legitimate wife, the secondary wife’s support and conjugal right were not to be denied her.

11. Go out free. The female slave was not to be treated as a mere household servant, but permitted to return to her father at once, a free woman, with the right of marrying again. Her father was not required to refund any part of the price paid for her.

12. Smiteth a man. Homicide is considered in vs. 12–14. This law is similar to the one given to Noah (Gen. 9:6). Intentional murder was in no case to be pardoned.

13. God deliver him. Literally, “if God let him fall.” This indicates only that God had permitted the dead man to fall unexpectedly into the hand of one slaying him, without the slayer’s deliberate lying “in wait” to do so.

Appoint thee a place. For a man to come unexpectedly upon his enemy and slay him was not considered murder, but manslaughter or justifiable homicide. For this there was no specific legal penalty. He was left to the simple, rude justice of established custom, the retribution of “the avenger of blood” (Num. 35:12; Deut. 19:6, 12). This law did not alter the general Eastern practice of either taking life for life or giving a financial compensation. The law of Moses placed between “the avenger of blood,” or next of kin, and his victim the opportunity for the latter to reach a place of asylum. This was to be in one of the six “cities of refuge,” where he could be safe until his case was heard before the men of his own city (Num. 35:9–28; Deut. 19:1–13; Joshua 20).

Laws should always combine mercy with justice. If too severe, laws defeat their own purpose, since their very severity makes it unlikely that they will be carried out. The moral consciousness of the people revolts against them. When forgery was a capital offense in England, for instance, juries could not be secured to convict men of this crime. Legal enactments must be in accordance with the conscience of the community, or they will cease to command respect. Good men will break them, courts will hesitate to enforce obedience to them, and wise legislators will ever seek to change them to harmonize with the best moral sentiment of the community.

14. Slay him with guile. The deliberate, intentional slayer of human life was to be taken even from the altar (otherwise a place of safety) if he took refuge there, and summarily punished (1 Kings 2:28–34).

15. Smiteth his father. That is, strikes him. This implies deliberate and persistent opposition to parental authority. In this and the next two verses other capital offenses are dealt with. To smite does not mean to kill, a crime dealt with in v. 12. However, the severe penalty for smiting strongly emphasizes the dignity and authority of parents. When we reflect that parents stand in the place of God to their children until the age of moral responsibility (PP 308), that parents care for and protect them in their helpless years, and that even nature places within the minds of children an instinctive reverence for their parents, this penalty does not seem strange or excessive. Society is never secure and cannot long exist where parental authority is held in contempt. Far more is involved here than a single act of disrespect.

16. Stealeth a man. To steal, or kidnap, men to make them slaves, was an early and widespread crime (see Gen. 37:25–28). Those stolen were usually foreigners. To steal them was not considered a legal offense. If, however, the kidnaped person was a fellow countryman, punishment was severe (Deut. 24:7).

17. Curseth his father. Inasmuch as parents do stand in the place of God to their children in their earliest years (see on v. 15), the penalty for cursing them is equivalent to the penalty for blaspheming God (Lev. 24:16).

18. With a stone. The use of a stone or the fist indicates the absence of a premeditated design to kill, as would be true if a weapon had been prepared for use.

19. If he rise again. Rabbinical commentators state that the offender was put in prison until it was learned whether the wounded man would die. If he died, the assailant was tried for murder. If he recovered, a fine was imposed to cover the loss of the injured man’s time.

20. Smite his servant. In ancient times a slave was considered the absolute property of his master, and might be mistreated, abused, or even killed without legal interference. In Rome a master could deal with his servant as he pleased, selling, punishing, or slaying him. The laws of Moses, however, greatly improved the condition of native slaves and granted them certain legal rights. Although the discipline of slaves at times called for smiting them, God required that it be inflicted within reason. A “maid” would ordinarily be chastised by her mistress, or by a higher servant under the authority of the mistress. Criminals in the East have often been put to death by the bastinado. Beating with rods might prove fatal to some because of a particularly sensitive nervous system. Inasmuch as the master had paid a sum of money for the slave, if the slave lived a day or two after the beating, the owner was not held for punishment.

22. Hurt a woman. An unintentional injury, due perhaps to the woman’s interference in a quarrel involving men.

Yet no mischief. “Mischief” here denotes death (Gen. 42:4, 38; Gen. 44:29). The “judges” were to impose a fine to protect the offender from any excessive sum the woman’s husband might demand.

23. Life for life. This seemingly excessive penalty for an injury that was largely accidental and with no intention of taking life, was probably the reflection of an old law like that of the “avenger of blood” (see on v. 13). It must be remembered that there were certain provisions in these laws that Moses tolerated, such as the “bill of divorcement,” because of the “hardness” of their “hearts” (Deut. 24:1–4; Matt. 19:3–8). It is also to be kept in mind that some of these Mosaic enactments were not absolutely best from the divine viewpoint, but were imperfect (Ex. 20:25; Ps. 81:12). They were relatively the best that God’s people, at that time and in their state of moral and spiritual development, would receive and obey (see on v. 1).

24. Eye for eye. This law was also quite general among ancient nations. Solon introduced this law, in part, into the code of Athens, and in Rome it was included in the Twelve Tables. Numerous laws of a similar nature were included in the ancient Code of Hammurabi, a king of Babylon who lived about the time of Abraham (see Additional Note at close of chapter).

If the literal interpretation of this law were insisted upon in our Lord’s day (see Matt. 5:38–42), it must have been by the Sadducees, for they refused to read into the law a spiritual interpretation. No good would have been served by requiring, literally, “eye for eye.” It would have meant great loss to the individual doing the injury, without bringing the least gain to the one injured. Persistent requirement of compensation is quite different from a passionate desire for revenge.

26. Smite the eye. This verse and the next set forth the law pertaining to assaults upon slaves. The “eye” and “tooth” are specially mentioned because the former is considered our most precious physical organ, and the loss of the latter as that which is of least consequence. The general law of retaliation did not take in slaves. Ordinary blows given a slave did not carry with them any more thought of compensation than those given a child. However, permanent harm to an organ or the loss of a member afforded the slave the right of complaint and compensation. Revenge in kind was impossible because it would have put the slave in the position of retaliating against his master; hence compulsory compensation was provided. The principle was upheld that any permanent physical loss gave to the slave the right of freedom, a privilege which must have acted as an effective deterrent to brutality on the part of the master.

28. If an ox gore. To establish as firmly as possible the principle of the sacredness of human life, Moses takes up in vs. 28–32 injuries caused by domestic animals. Echoing the declaration already made to Noah (Gen. 9:5), the ox must be killed, but the owner is “clear” (RSV). Not being killed in the manner required, the animal might not be eaten. Furthermore, the animal was under a curse. According to rabbinical expositors it was not even lawful to sell the carcass to the Gentiles. By being “stoned” to death, the ox suffered the same penalty that would have been imposed upon a human murderer.

29. If the ox were wont. If the owner knew the animal to be dangerous and to require watching, and yet carelessly neglected to watch it properly, he was held guilty, as being accessory to the homicide and therefore deserving of death. The sound principle is established that a man is responsible for all foreseeable consequences of his actions.

30. Ransom of his life. Since it was unlikely that a man would be put to death for the offense of an animal, no matter what the neglect, provision is made for paying “a sum of money” as a fine, the amount being proportionate to the value of the life taken.

32. Push a manservant. That is, “gore a manservant.” Even then the ox was to be killed, to further strengthen the concept of the sanctity of human life. Instead of a varying “ransom,” or fine, the average price of a slave, 30 shekels of silver, was in all cases to be paid to the slave’s master in compensation for his loss. Thirty shekels of silver would be equivalent to approximately $8.75 today (see on Gen. 20:16).

33. Open a pit. Literally, “leaves a pit open” (RSV). The remainder of the chapter deals with injuries to property, which among the Hebrews consisted largely of cattle and flocks. Pits, or cisterns, were necessary in Palestine for the storage of water. They were usually covered by a flat stone. It was the duty of the one drawing water to re-cover the cistern after taking water from it.

Dig a pit. In the unfenced fields of Palestine it was always possible that a neighbor’s animal might go astray and suffer injury because of another’s negligence. Unable to extricate itself, an animal falling into a pit might drown. The owner of the cistern was to make good the loss of the animal and receive the carcass.

35. Sell the live ox. The two owners concerned were to divide between them the value of both the living and the dead ox, and share equally in the loss. If, however, one of the animals was known to be vicious, the owner who suffered the loss was to receive full compensation but lose his share of the carcass. God strictly condemns carelessness and neglect. Whatever we do we are to do well (Eccl. 9:10; Jer. 48:10).

additional note on chapter 21

While excavating the acropolis of Susa, the Biblical Shushan, in December, 1901 and January, 1902, J. de Morgan found three large fragments of a black diorite stone. They fitted perfectly together and when joined formed a stele, or standing pillar, 7 ft. 41/2 in. high, whose base had a diameter of about 24 in. In its upper part the stele contained a relief showing Hammurabi, the sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon (1728-1686 b.c.), standing before the seated sun-god Shamash. Otherwise, the whole surface was covered with a long inscription written in Babylonian cuneiform, consisting of nearly 300 laws. This proved to be the famous Code of Hammurabi, and is now in the Louvre in Paris. A facsimile may be seen at the Oriental Institute in Chicago.

The publication of this code in the year of its discovery by the expedition’s cuneiformist V. Scheil caused a tremendous sensation in the world of Biblical scholarship. This was due to the fact that it proved the fallacy of the pronouncements of many scholars of the higher critical schools, who had denied the possibility that law codes such as that of Moses could have existed before the first millennium b.c. The opinion of the scholarly world with regard to the law of Moses at the time of the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi is well reflected by Johannes Jeremias in his book Moses und Hammurabi (2d ed., Leipzig, 1903):

“If eighteen months ago a scientifically educated theologian had asked the question, ‘Is there a Code of Moses,’ one would have left him standing ‘in the field’ just as the unfaithful shepherd in the C[ode of] H[ammurabi] (256). The literary critical pronouncement of the Kuenen-Wellhausen school is still held: A codification before the ninth century [b.c.] is impossible” (pp. 60, 61).

Reminding his readers of a statement made by Wellhausen, that “Moses is in truth just as little the originator of the Law, as our Lord Jesus the founder of the church discipline in Lower Hessia,” Jeremias asked the question, “How would he judge today?” (p. 60). Critical scholars had emphatically denied the Mosaic authorship of the laws found in the Pentateuch, since they were convinced that the existence of such laws during the second millennium b.c. was historically impossible. Suddenly a collection of laws came to light of which no one could deny that it had been written down in the first half of the second millennium, even before the time of Moses. To the great surprise of critical scholars, this Code of Hammurabi revealed that the strange customs of the patriarchal age as described in Genesis had actually existed, and also that the civil laws of ancient Israel showed great similarity to those of ancient Babylonia.

Because of the great importance of this code a description of the history of the stele containing it, and the contents of its laws, is given here. The stele originally contained 3,624 lines, divided into 39 columns of writing. It had been set up by Hammurabi in Babylon, his capital. When that city was conquered by an Elamite king, the pillar was carried off to Susa as a trophy of war and set up in the royal palace there. The Elamites erased five columns of the inscription, but for some unknown reason failed to replace them with an inscription of their own. The pillar was finally broken to pieces in one of the destructions of Susa, and was already buried by the time of the Persian kings, when Esther and Mordecai lived.

The code contains a preface, or prologue, in which the king claims to have been commissioned by the gods to act as a wise and righteous ruler and judge over the kingdom. In the epilogue, or concluding remarks, the king reaffirms his intention to come to the aid of the oppressed and injured, and invites each one with a judicial case to come and read on the pillar how his case stands according to the law of the king. Between prologue and epilogue are found the 282 sections of the law, all of a purely civil nature. They deal with slavery and criminal offenses, regulate rents, wages, and debts, and determine questions relating to property, marriage, shipping rights, and the duties of physicians, builders, and others.

That the Code of Hammurabi illustrates and illuminates some seemingly strange customs of the patriarchal age has been explained in the appropriate comments on several Genesis passages (see on Gen. 16:2, 6; 31:32, 39). A careful study of the provisions of the Hammurabi Code results in a most interesting picture of social life and customs in the days of Abraham and throughout the patriarchal period.

Of special interest to the student of the Bible are those laws that show similarities to te law of Moses. Herewith is a comparison of some of Hammurabi’s laws (abbreviated, CH) with corresponding provisions in the law of Moses.

CH 8. “If a citizen stole an ox or a sheep or an ass or a pig or a goat, if it belonged to the god (or) belonged to the palace, he shall make thirty–fold restitution; if it belongs to a citizen, he shall make tenfold restitution; if the thief does not have sufficient to make restitution he shall be put to death.”

Ex. 22:1-4. “If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. . . . For he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.”

It will be noticed that the Biblical law concerning theft is more humane than the Babylonian one, the latter even providing capital punishment in certain cases. However, the principle that a thief must make restitution for his crime is the same in both laws.

The slave trade was considered a grave offense against society by both Hammurabi and Moses:

CH 14. “If a citizen has stolen the son of a citizen, he shall be put to death.”

Ex. 21:16. “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”

The laws dealing with voluntary servitude are similar in principle:

CH 117. “If a citizen has an obligation, and has (therefore) sold his wife, his son, or his daughter, or given them as surety, they shall work in the house of their purchaser or the holder of the pledge for three years; in the fourth year their release will be established.”

Deut. 15:12-14. “And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of they flock.”

When a Babylonian fell into slavery for debts he had to serve three years without any compensation, whereas the Hebrew slave served a longer term, but received a reward at the end of his term of service.

CH 138. “If a citizen wants to divorce his wife who did not bear him children, he shall give her money to the amount of her marriage price, and compensate her for her dowry which she brought from the house of her father; then he may divorce her.”

Deut. 24:1. “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”

The Babylonian law permitted divorce in the case of female sterility if compensation were made, whereas the Hebrew law permitted divorce only if the husband found that he had been deceived and that his wife was not the pure or healthy woman she had claimed to be.

CH 195. “If a son strikes his father, his hand shall be cut off.”

Ex. 21:15. “And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.”

The severity of the Mosaic law is due to the fact that according to the divine order parenthood was more sacred to the Hebrews than to the Babylonians.

CH 196. “If a citizen destroys the eye of the son of a citizen, his eye shall be destroyed.”

Lev. 24:19, 20. “And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.”

CH 197. “If he breaks the bone of a citizen, his bone shall be broken.”

CH 198. “If he destroys the eye of a subordinate or breaks the bone of a subordinate, he shall pay one mina of silver.”

CH 200. “If a citizen knocks out a tooth of a citizen, his tooth shall be knocked out.”

Deut. 19:21. “And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

Both laws guarantee to each man life, health, and well-being. A marked difference is found in the fact that there were two classes of citizens in Babylon, those that were fully free (citizens), and another class which might be called serfs (translated here as “subordinates”), whereas the Hebrews did not make such distinctions. The concept that all men were equal seems to have originated with God’s people. The dignity of man cannot be fully realized apart from a recognition of the true God and the principles imparted to Israel.

CH 199. “If he destroys the eye of a citizen’s slave, or breaks the bone of a citizen’s slave, he shall pay half of the purchasing price.”

Ex. 21:26 “And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.”

The difference in these laws is apparent. The Babylonian law speaks only of injuries caused to another man’s servant, and treats them as if they were inflicted against the servant’s master, but the Biblical law recognizes the human rights of a slave, who was to be set free if for any reason his master injured him. This shows clearly that the Hebrew law did not consider a slave the unconditional property of his master, a principle recognized nowhere else in the ancient Near East.

CH 206. “If a citizen has struck a citizen in a brawl, and has caused him injury, this citizen shall swear, ‘I did not strike him deliberately,’ but he shall pay the bill of the physician.”

Ex. 21:18. “And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.”

These two laws are almost identical.

CH 209. “If a citizen has struck the daughter of a citizen, and causes her (thus) to have a miscarriage, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus.”

Ex. 21:22. “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

The punishment for this crime was more severe among the Hebrews than among the Babylonians because of the Hebrew concept of the sanctity of life. It is noteworthy, however, that the Hebrew perpetrator of the crime was not left entirely to the mercy of the husband, since any demands of the husband had to be affirmed by the judges.

CH 210. “If that woman has died, his daughter shall be put to death.”

Ex. 21:23. “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”

Here, the provisions are more equal, because human life has been lost. However, the Babylonian law allowed a a man to pay for his murder with the life of his daughter instead of with his own, an injustice toward the child that the Mosaic law did not permit (see Eze. 18:20).

CH 249. “If a citizen hired an ox, and god smote it and it has died, and the citizen who hired the ox shall swear by god (to be innocent), and then shall go free.”

Ex. 22:10, 11. “If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.”

CH 250. “If an ox, when it was walking along the street, gored a citizen to death, that case is not subject to claim.”

Ex. 21:28. “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.”

CH 251. “If the ox of a citizen is a gorer, and his city council make it known to him that it was a gorer, but he did not cut its horns, (or) tie up his ox, and the ox has gored to death the son of a citizen, he shall give one–half mina of silver.”

Ex. 21:29. “But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.”

These are some examples in which the laws of Hammurabi show great similarity to Mosaic laws. There are certain fundamental differences, owing primarily to different concepts regarding the rights of human beings and the sanctity of life. It should also be remembered, however, that many of the laws of Hammurabi show no similarity whatever to Biblical laws. Yet, it is obvious to anyone who has studied these laws that there is some relationship between the Biblical and Babylonian codes. This fact can be explained in three ways: (1) The Mosaic laws are the basis for Hammurabi’s code. (2) The laws of Hammurabi were borrowed by Moses. (3) Both collections go back to the same origin.

The first of the three theories cannot be true, since the Code of Hammurabi was written long before the time of Moses. That the Biblical laws were borrowed from the Babylonians has been claimed by critical scholars who believe that the Pentateuch came into being only after the Jews had come into being only after the Jews had come in contact with the Babylonians during the first millennium b.c. This theory is unacceptable for those who believe that Moses received his laws from God at Mt. Sinai in the middle of the second millennium b.c. The best explanation is therefore to conclude that both laws go back to a common origin.

Since it is attested that Abraham was already acquainted with the laws and commandments of God four centuries before the Exodus (Gen. 26:5), the laws given on Mt. Sinai can have been only a repetition of divine precepts that had been communicated to mankind long before that time. Like Abraham, the peoples of Mesopotamia knew these laws and passed them on from generation to generation, first orally, and later in writing. But idolatrous and polytheistic concepts gradually corrupted not only religious and moral practices but legal principles also. This is why the laws of Hammurabi differ from their Biblical counterparts, and are less humane.

For some 45 years it was thought that the Code of Hammurabi was the oldest collection of laws. In recent years, however, several much older collections of law have been found. From Nippur comes the Code of Lipit-Isthar, published in 1948. It was written in Sumerian one or two centuries before the Code of Hammurabi, but is very similar to it and even contains a number of laws identical with the latter. In the same year, 1948, there was published another code, which had been discovered in Harmal near Baghdad, the Code of King Bilalama of Eshnunna, who ruled some 300 years before Hammurabi. This code is clearly a forerunner of the laws of Lipit-Ishtar and Hammurabi. In 1954 a law code older than any of the three was published, that of Ur-Nammu, one that contained laws far more humane than any of the others known thus far. This shows that the closer a document of this nature is related to the original source, which was divine, the more it reveals the character of the real lawgiver—God. In whatever code of laws they may be embodied, all right principles reflect the justice and mercy of the Author of r

Ellen G. White comments

1-27PP 310

1     FE 506; SR 148

1, 2, 12            PP 310

14   PP 516

15, 16  PP 310

17   PP 407

20, 26, 27        PP 310

28, 29  Te 288