And if a man strike his bondman or his handmaid with a staff, and he die under his hand, he shall certainly be avenged.
The laws of Exodus 21 follow straight after the ten commandments. They govern Israel's daily life, and here God speaks for the one person in the house with no legal defence: the servant under his master's rod. Why was such treatment allowed at all, and what does the limit tell us about God?
A master might assume his ownership is absolute. The chapter opens by placing the master himself under an authority.
Special duties of masters are first considered. They may think they have full authority over their slaves, but they must first remember God's authority over themselves. God clearly limits their authority over slaves.
The next verse draws a line, and gives only one reason for it.
A man who struck his servant and caused his death would face the death penalty himself. But if the servant lived on for a day or two before dying, that penalty did not apply. The only explanation given for this is, "for he is his money" (v. 21).
The ESV renders that phrase "for the slave is his money." Still, a master who killed his servant outright answered for it as a killer.
Read together, these rules show God guarding the bodies of the people least able to guard themselves.
All these laws reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially those who live under someone else's authority.
Notice how small the matters are that God bends down to settle.
Here, too, we may see how amazingly God lowers Himself. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He can still stoop to judge between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. "Who is like the Lord our God, who humbles Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and on earth?"
The Judge behind these courts shows no favour.
God provided for everything, upheld every interest, and met every claim. He showed no partiality, and made no distinction between the rich and the poor. He weighed each man's claim in a balance set with divine accuracy, so that no one could fairly complain of a decision… The stroke of justice fell only on the head of the guilty, while God protected every obedient soul in the enjoyment of all his rights and privileges.
These measured penalties are what Jesus later set His own teaching against.
We find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Our blessed Lord especially quotes these provisions to point out their contrast with grace. He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can release every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and released our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle with one another.
But why was such treatment allowed at all? One writer points to what the law could and could not do:
The law allowed things that Christians today would not allow… We must always remember that "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19). It set out the minimum of God's demands, so that anyone who fell short of it in any way came under the sentence of death. Christ shows the maximum of all God's thoughts and desires.
These laws also say something uncomfortable about us.
The Lord had to enact laws against certain crimes. That proves man is capable of committing those crimes. If the capability and the tendency were not there, no such laws would be needed. These statutes prove beyond all question that even the most refined and cultivated member of the human family carries in his heart the seeds of the very darkest and most horrifying evils.
- Limit — The master's power is not absolute. God's authority over the master is the first thing established, and it caps what he may do.
- Life — A servant's life is not the master's to spend. Kill him under your hand, and you answer for it with your own.
- Care — Behind the limit stands God's tenderness. It reaches the lowest place in the house — even a servant's lost tooth.
- Justice — God shows that care without favour. He weighs rich and poor in the same balance, and the blow of justice falls only on the guilty.
- Grace — Law gives the exact equivalent, no more and no less. Christ, quoting this very rule, opened something law never held: a claim that can be released.
Only, if he continue [to live] a day or two days, he shall not be avenged; for he is his money.
Exodus 21 moves from the Ten Commandments to case law. This verse deals with a master who beats his servant, and the servant lives on for a day or two before dying. The stated reason for the lighter outcome — that the servant is the master's property — raises two hard questions. What did God permit here? And what was He holding back?
The verse is the second half of a pair. One writer sets out the ruling and the single reason given for the difference.
Anyone who struck his servant and caused his death would incur the death penalty himself. Yet if the servant lived even a day or two before dying, the penalty would not be carried out. The only explanation given for this is, "for he is his money" (v. 21).
Read alone, the clause sounds like the master owns a life. The chapter cuts that idea down at the start. It opens with what masters may and may not do.
Special duties of masters are considered first. They may think they have full authority over their slaves. But they must first remember God's authority over themselves. God limits what they may do.
That limit is real. Six verses later, a master who destroys a servant's eye or knocks out a tooth loses the servant. The injured man walks out free.
These rules look harsh on their own. Set them beside the nations around Israel and they look different. One writer draws that comparison.
The slave of those days was the property of his master. The law of Moses was merciful. It protected the Jewish servant from a cruel master. Among the other nations there was almost no legal check on a harsh master, and a slave there could suffer the most brutal treatment.
Commentators do not defend the institution these laws regulate. One calls it what it is, while noting the softening effect of the limits placed on it.
This commandment deals with slavery. It was an evil that could not be removed yet. In the limited form allowed here, it often became a benefit — above all when the slave became something like the adopted child of his master.
Another writer says the same about these rules as a whole. They improved on the practice of the nations around Israel. They still fell short of God's own mind.
The law given by Moses had done much to reduce the harshness of slavery in Israel… Still, we freely admit that the law made nothing perfect, here as everywhere else. Because of human hardness of heart, the law tolerated much that was far from God's mind. That lasted until He came who is the truth in grace. Christ changed everything, and the bondman became His freedman.
Elsewhere the same reasoning is applied to the servant-woman of verses 7-11, where things were permitted that Christians today would not tolerate — the law set out the minimum of God's demands, while everything He desires is set out in Christ.
The verse belongs to a block of rulings that measure damage and match penalty to injury. One commentator draws two conclusions from the whole section. The second explains why this verse feels cold.
The first is that all these rules show the tenderness of God. He protects the bodies of His people, above all those under someone else's power. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. Our blessed Lord quotes these rules to show how they differ from grace… Law demands an equal return — no more and no less. Grace can cancel every claim.
Law can weigh a case and set a boundary. It cannot produce a heart that would never strike at all. That is why the same chapter opens with a servant who stays because he loves his master. He is the opposite of a man valued as money.
- Property — The verse gives one reason and no other for the lighter penalty: the servant was the master's money.
- Limit — Ownership did not mean unlimited power. God's authority stood over the master. Killing a servant brought punishment. Injuring one cost him the servant.
- Mercy — In the nations around Israel a master faced almost no legal check. These rules gave real protection to the person with the least power.
- Tolerated — Writers call slavery an evil that could not be removed yet. The law tolerated much that was far from God's mind, because it made nothing perfect.
- Christ — Law weighs damages and stops there; grace cancels the claim. The chapter that prices a servant also opens with the servant who refuses freedom out of love.
And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate.
Two men fight, a pregnant woman is hit, and her child comes out early. The law calls for a fine, but it names both her husband and the judges — so who really sets the penalty?
This chapter is a block of case law. These rules were not abstract ideas. They set how neighbours were to deal with each other day by day.
This chapter records various "judgments" or "fixed ordinances." The people were commanded to keep them. They were to shape their conduct in every dealing with each other, as fits those who are in covenant relationship with God. The penalties for any breach of them plainly match the character and principle of that relationship, which was law.
The penalty matches the outcome. The ESV says her children "come out"; the writer quoted here takes that as a miscarriage. He reads the further harm in the next verse as harm to the woman, and he shows that even the harsher penalties aimed at fair repayment.
If men are fighting and a woman suffers a miscarriage, the person responsible must pay some compensation. The woman's husband demands it, or a judge decides it. But if the woman herself was harmed, the guilty party had to answer for that too. The judgment then matched the injury — "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (vv. 24-25). Of course, tearing out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured person. But that person is entitled to fair repayment.
This verse names the judges, and that is the key to the famous "eye for eye" rule. It speaks to the courts, not to the injured man's own hand.
The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that governed the daily life of the people. It is not a rule for one person's conscience. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, because both name the judges. The direction rested on the principle of complete fairness in repaying the deed. It was meant to warn the people and hold them back (Deut. 19:20).
These rules can look like dry legal detail. One writer draws out what they say about God Himself.
All these laws reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people, and above all the bodies of those in a lower position.
The matching penalty works as a limit. Without it, anger would ask back more than it lost.
Under the old order we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), and by that it restrained the anger of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, out of revenge.
Jesus quoted this very standard when He taught His disciples. What He asked of them went past anything they had heard.
Here the Lord goes beyond all Jewish, and indeed all human, thought. He tells His disciples to bear every kind of wrong done to them with patient grace. They must not resist it. He quotes the law's principle of retaliation, as it is called, to set it aside. That principle was wide open to abuse. Even when judges applied it with the strictest justice, it acted as a strong check on the desire for revenge. Yet it was still far from the mind of heaven which Christ was showing on earth.
The same writer turns this contrast into a rule for how we treat others.
Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. Never forget, though, that grace itself rests deep in righteousness, and so it reigns through righteousness (Rom. 5:21), on a foundation that never changes.
- Judgments. This verse is case law. It is a fixed rule for how God's covenant people treat each other, and its penalties fit that relationship.
- Judges. The husband may name a claim, but the court settles it. This verse shows that "eye for eye" was an order to judges, not permission for private payback.
- Measured. The matching penalty restrains anger, which would otherwise demand two eyes for one. It was fair repayment and a warning to all.
- Tender. Behind the legal detail is God's care for the bodies of His people, above all the weaker ones.
- Beyond. Christ quoted this standard and set it aside for His own. Law asks the exact equivalent. Grace can cancel the claim, because ours was cancelled first.
But if mischief happen, then thou shalt give life for life,
These case laws come right after the Ten Commandments, and this one covers a fight that injures a pregnant woman. It raises two questions: is "life for life" cruel, and how does it fit with the grace Jesus teaches?
The matching penalties say something about the Lawgiver, not only about the offender.
On God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice… That was the character of the laws, the statutes, and the judgments God used to govern His earthly kingdom of Israel… There was no partiality — no difference made between the rich and the poor. God weighed each man's claim on a balance set with divine accuracy, so no one could fairly complain of a decision. The stroke of justice fell only on the head of the guilty, while God protected every obedient person in the enjoyment of all his rights and privileges.
The rule is not a slogan. It answers one specific injury, and the penalty rises or falls with the damage done.
If a fight causes a woman to lose her child, the person responsible must pay compensation, as the woman's husband demands, or as a judge decides. But if the woman herself suffered harm, the guilty party answered for it, and the judgment matched the injury… Of course, taking out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he has a right to fair compensation.
Verse 22 has already put the matter before judges. That settles who may apply the measure.
The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that regulated the daily life of the people. It is not a principle for the conscience of a private individual. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since both name the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed, and it served as a warning and deterrent to the people.
There is a practical reason the sentence had to come from a judge rather than the injured man.
"An eye for an eye" is fully righteous recompense, and it expresses the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If a man takes the law into his own hands, he will nearly always inflict worse treatment than he received.
When Israel applied this rule, the nation acted for God. Writers point out that the believer today does not stand in that place.
If in their law they were to exact "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…" (Ex. 21:23-25), they did it as the executors of God's governmental righteousness… No thoughtful Christian can look at this trust given to Israel without seeing how completely it contrasts with the believer's position today. Some argue that this is because the world has been educated to a higher level. Let us ask one question — has God been educated?… The Israelite was the agent of God's righteous government on earth; the Christian displays God's grace on earth.
Two things stand out here. God cares for the bodies of the weak. And law settles a claim exactly, with nothing added.
The first is that all these rules reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially those in a subject position. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent… Our Lord especially cites these provisions to show how they contrast with grace (Matthew 5:38-39). Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less; but grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another… Never forget, though, that grace itself rests on a deep foundation of righteousness.
The law's principle comes naturally to us. The attitude Christ calls for does not.
It sets out an attitude of mind that is very foreign to the flesh, which cries, "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…" (Ex. 21:23-25). We can understand the law principle as men in the flesh… But grace — how slow we are to understand it, and slower still to practice it, though we owe everything to it!
- Measure. The penalty matches the damage exactly — no more, no less — and applies to rich and poor alike.
- Mother. The rule answers a real case. A pregnant woman is hurt in a fight, and the sentence rises only if lasting harm follows.
- Magistrate. This is direction for judges, not licence for the injured man. Anyone who avenges himself nearly always overpays.
- Ministry. Israel carried this out as God's agent of government on earth. The believer today stands elsewhere and displays God's grace.
- Mercy. Law demands the exact equivalent. Grace can cancel the claim — and grace itself rests on righteousness.
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
This verse sits inside a set of case laws for daily life in Israel, including cases of people hurt in fights. Its famous phrase raises two questions: was God allowing revenge, and why did Jesus later set the rule aside?
The rule appears in a case where a woman is injured. The penalty had to match the harm done.
If there were bad results for the woman, the guilty party had to answer for it. The judgment would match the injury — "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (vv. 24-25). Of course, plucking out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he has a right to fair compensation.
The words were never handed to the injured man as permission to act. They belong to the courtroom.
This law contained moral directions for the life of each Israelite. It contained ceremonial directions — the laws of the offerings — so that the children of Israel could serve God. It also contained legal directions to regulate the daily life of the people. The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the last group. It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual, but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. This is clear from Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18, where the text names the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and keep them from such deeds.
In private hands the rule turns into something worse than the first wrong.
Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If a man takes the law into his own hands, he will almost always inflict worse treatment than he received.
The measure was a ceiling on what an injured man could claim.
Under the old arrangement we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), and by it restrained the anger of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in revenge.
The same exactness runs through these laws, and it guards rich and poor alike.
The law provided for everything, upheld every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. God weighed each man's claim with divine accuracy, so no one had a just reason to complain of a decision. The pure robe of justice was not to be stained with bribery, corruption and favouritism.
These laws also say something uncomfortable about the people who received them.
The Lord had to make laws against certain crimes. That proves man is capable of committing them. If the capability and the tendency were not there, there would be no need of the enactments.
One thing is missing from all this fairness.
Here we find the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. Grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle toward one another. But never forget: grace itself rests on a foundation laid deep in righteousness.
Jesus later quoted this verse to His disciples and gave them a different rule.
He quotes the principle of retaliation from the law to set it aside. It was wide open to abuse. And even applied with the strictest justice, and acting as a powerful check on the desire for revenge, how far it was from the mind of heaven! That mind is what Christ was showing on earth, and laying down as the only conduct fitting for the sons of His Father.
Giving up private revenge does not abolish public justice.
The Christian must not avenge himself. That duty in no way clashes with the government of God carried out by magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.
- Measure. The penalty matches the real injury — fair compensation, never more and never less.
- Magistrate. It is a direction for judges, not a rule for the victim's conscience. Private hands always strike harder than the wrong deserves.
- Muzzle. Far from licensing revenge, the exact measure caps it, holding back the man who would demand two eyes for one.
- Mirror. The law shows God's justice without favouritism. It also shows man able to commit the very crimes it forbids.
- Mercy. Law can only demand the exact equivalent. Grace can cancel the claim. The forgiven disciple lives by grace, while public justice still stands.
branding for branding, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
This verse closes a list of bodily injuries with one measure: the penalty matches the harm, item for item. Is that cruelty or restraint — and why did the Lord set His own teaching against it?
Commentators read the list as a picture of God's even-handed rule over Israel.
First, on God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Such was the character of the laws, the statutes and the judgments by which God governed His earthly kingdom of Israel. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. The scales that weighed each man's claim were set with divine accuracy, so no one could justly complain of a decision.
A burn, a bruise, a knocked-out tooth are small matters in the running of a nation.
Here, too, we see how amazingly low He stoops. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He judges between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. "Who is like the Lord our God, who humbles Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and on earth?"
The measure was addressed to those who tried cases, not to the person who had been hurt.
The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that regulated the daily life of the people. It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual, but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since both name the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and hold them back from evil.
Take it out of the court's hands and the measure collapses at once.
"An eye for an eye" is fully righteous repayment, expressing the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course the sentence must be passed by a judge, not by the offended party. If someone takes the law into his own hands, he will in practically every case inflict worse treatment than he received.
Israel carried out this measure as God's agent on earth.
If in their law they were to exact "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth… stripe for stripe," it was as the executors of God's governmental righteousness… No intelligent Christian can look at this trust given to Israel without seeing how completely it contrasts with the believer's position now. Is this, as some have argued, because the world has been educated to a higher level? Let us ask one question — has God been educated?
Two things stand out in these rulings.
The first is that all these enactments show the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially of those in a subject position. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent… Our Lord points to these very rules to show how they contrast with grace… Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. Yet never forget: the foundation of grace itself is laid deep in righteousness.
The believer's new rule does not cancel the state's right to punish crime.
The law of Moses said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." With the Christian it is quite different. God has dealt with him in grace, so he must also act in grace towards others. The word to him is "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"… This duty not to avenge himself in no way clashes with God's government through magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.
- Measure. The penalty matches the injury exactly — no more and no less — so no one, rich or poor, could complain of the verdict.
- Judge. God gave this measure to Israel's judges, not to the injured man. In private hands, repayment always runs past the injury.
- Care. God stoops to rule on a burn, a wound, a servant's tooth. He guards the bodies of His people, above all those under another's authority.
- Contrast. Law demands the exact equivalent. Grace can cancel the claim — and the Lord pointed to this very rule to show the contrast.
- Practice. God has dealt with the believer in grace, so he does not avenge himself but leaves vengeance to Him. Magistrates still carry their God-given task of punishing evil.
And if a man strike the eye of his bondman or the eye of his handmaid, and it be marred, he shall let him go for his eye.
Exodus 21 belongs to the "judgments" — the case laws given right after the Ten Commandments. Here a master injures his servant, and the price is not a fine but the man's freedom: why should liberty be the cost of an eye?
The verses just before this one lay down the rule of equal payback: eye for eye, tooth for tooth. One writer asks what that rule would do for the injured man.
Of course, to literally pluck out someone's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he is entitled to a fair recompense.
Verse 26 applies that principle to a servant, male or female alike. The master cannot pay in kind, so he pays in liberty.
This is intimated in verse 26. If a man blinded the eye of his slave, he must let him go free for his eye's sake, and similarly, if he knocked out his tooth (v. 27).
Even a knocked-out tooth bought the servant's freedom.
These case laws share one direction: they lean toward the person who cannot fight back.
The study of each statute would yield valuable instruction. They witness to God's gracious care and protection of those who were weak and in a lower position. Such people might suffer oppression and unjust treatment from those who were stronger and in authority over them.
The same writer measures the modern world against that standard, and finds it wanting.
What we see around us today is a sad and sobering testimony to how far man has departed from God, and to his refusal to be subject to these ordinances. As the Preacher says, "Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them" (Ecclesiastes 4:1).
The chapter does not pretend the servant was anything other than owned property. A few verses earlier, that ownership limits the penalty for a fatal blow.
One who struck his servant and caused death would incur the death penalty himself; yet if the servant lingered even a day or two before dying, the penalty would not take effect. The only explanation given for this is, "for he is his money" (v. 21).
Verse 26 turns that around. The master's money walks out the door, and he must let it go.
These rules protect the body, but they do not rise above strict justice — and the writers are careful to say so.
All these enactments reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially of those in a subject position. We also find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Our blessed Lord quotes these provisions to point out their contrast with grace. He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39). Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can remit every claim.
But who was to apply this rule?
It was not for them to avenge themselves. The words were instruction to the judges in their administration of justice. But we are called to more than righteousness. The Christian standard is vastly higher than the Jewish.
Compared with the codes around it, this law was remarkable — and still incomplete.
The law given by Moses had done much to lessen slavery in Israel... In this the law of Moses stands in contrast with other codes — yes, and with selfish and proud Christendom. Among other privileges, Jewish slaves had the right to circumcision. They expressly enjoyed the Sabbath rest — a benefit to none more than to them. They had their place at the solemn assemblies of the year... Still, the law made nothing perfect, here as everywhere else. Because of Jewish or human hardness of heart, the law tolerated much that was far from God's mind, until He came who is the truth in grace. Christ changed everything, and the bondman became His freedman.
- Recompense — No payment could restore a blinded eye. So the law asked for what the master could give: the servant's freedom.
- Protection — These laws guard the weak, who could be oppressed by the strong set over them.
- Property — The chapter still calls the servant the master's money. Verse 26 costs the master that money the moment he maims the man.
- Limit — This is law, not grace: an exact equivalent, no more and no less. Judges applied it; the injured man did not take revenge.
- Fulfilment — The law lessened slavery, but made nothing perfect. Christ changed everything, and the servant became His freedman.
And if he knock out his bondman's tooth or his handmaid's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth.
One knocked-out tooth ends a master's claim, and this rule closes a run of injury laws. Why does God rule on something so small, and what does that say about the worth of a person another man owns?
Mackintosh is struck not by the size of the injury, but by God stooping to judge it at all.
Studying this section is well suited to impress the heart with God's unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness. It lets us form some idea of what a kingdom governed by laws of divine appointment is like. Here, too, we may see the amazing condescension of Him who is the great God of heaven and earth. He can still stoop to judge between man and man about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth.
The section on servants opens by telling owners that they are not the top of the chain of command.
The law takes up the special duties of masters first. They may think they have full authority over their slaves. But they must first remember God's authority over themselves. For God decidedly limits their authority over slaves.
This verse is where that limit bites. The master who damaged his servant lost him.
The words "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" stand just before this verse. Grant says no one was meant to match wound with wound.
Of course, literally plucking out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he has a right to a fair recompense.
Here the recompense is liberty. The servant walks away owning himself.
Read together, the injury laws of this chapter share one aim.
They witness to God's gracious care and protection of those who were weak and lower in position. Such people could be oppressed and treated unjustly by those who were stronger and in authority over them.
Justice like this is exact. Dennett draws two lessons from it.
The first is that all these rules reveal the tenderness of God. He protects the bodies of His people, and especially those in a subject position. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Our blessed Lord Himself quotes these provisions to show their contrast with grace. He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can cancel every claim.
Dennett adds one guard. Grace itself rests on a deep foundation of righteousness, and so it reigns through righteousness.
These laws softened slavery in Israel, but softening was not God's last word.
The law given through Moses had done much to reduce the harshness of slavery in Israel... Still, we fully allow that the law made nothing perfect, here as everywhere else. Because of human hardheartedness, the law tolerated a good deal that was far from God's mind. This lasted until He came who is the truth in grace. Christ changed everything, and the slave became His freed man.
- Stoop — God governs heaven and earth. He still comes down to rule on the death of an ox, a borrowed coat, and a servant's lost tooth.
- Limit — Owners may assume total authority, but God's authority over them cuts theirs down first.
- Recompense — "Tooth for tooth" never meant matching wounds. The injured man has a right to fair payment, and for a servant that payment is his freedom.
- Shield — These judgments guard the weak and those under authority from the stronger who could oppress them.
- Beyond — Law measures every claim exactly, but it holds no grace. The law made nothing perfect. Only in Christ does the slave become a free man.