The opponents of this view rely upon the words (v. 46)—“They shall be your bondmen forever”—whichthey claim must mean during life.——But it may be replied—One human life is very much short of forever. Also, if the statute had meant during life, why did it not say so?——Again; the order of the Hebrew words favors this construction: “Forever of them shall ye take servants”—or somewhat more literally: Forever among them shall ye serve yourselves, i. e. provide yourselves with servants. And this construction harmonizes fully with the drift of the context, the spirit of which is—Go to the heathen about you, or to heathen families living among you for your supply of bond-servants. Let this be the permanent arrangement.
The English phrase—“bond-servant” may perhaps give a stronger sense than the Hebrew will warrant. The Hebrew suggests no sort of “bond”—no obligation of law or justice. It expresses a certain degree of emphasis by means of repeating the words for service and servant, in this way: (v. 39), If thy brother with thee shall become weak “[broken down financially], and shall sell himself to thee, thou shalt not exact of him the service of a servant, [or serve thyself in him with the service of a servant].” This is all that “bond-servant” can mean. It is a somewhat intensified idea of service.——Another prohibition in this passage is sufficiently explicit: “Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor” (vs. 43, 46), i. e. literally, with crushing; shalt not break him down; or in the American slave-holder’s phrase “break him in.”
The case of foreign servants demands yet a few more words of explication. It can not be denied that the spirit of the Hebrew law favored the choice of foreigners for servants, and the increase of this class of population. This is plainly the doctrine of the passage Lev. 25: 44–46.——In connection with this we may profitably study the law of the Passover in its relation to servants (Ex. 12: 43–49). “There shall no stranger eat thereof, but every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.”——That this law contemplated Gentile servants is clear on two grounds:——(a.) Only such would need circumcision—all Hebrews being circumcised when eight days old.——(b.) The law (Lev. 25: 44) required them to take their servants from the heathen,and authorized them to “buy” such. The buying of a Hebrew servant was a very different thing. The poor Hebrew sold himself—i. e. his services, and took pay in advance of doing the work. Selling himself is precisely the sense of the Hebrew in Lev. 25: 39, 47, though in the former case (v. 39) our translators made it “be sold” and in the latter “sell himself.” The Hebrew verb is equally reflexive in both verses.——Moreover, no man might steal a Hebrew and sell him on pain of death. It does not appear that Hebrew fathers sold their sons. When they took pay for a daughter, it came under the usage of paying for wives. She was betrothed to her purchaser (Ex. 21: 7–11) and of course had the rights of a wife. Hence this “buying a servant for money” (Ex. 12: 44) contemplates a foreigner.——The law proceeds to say—“A foreigner (one not a servant) and a hired servant shall not eat thereof.”——Furthermore, circumcision was naturalization; it brought the servant within the pale of the Hebrew community. For this law of the Passover declares that “when a stranger sojourning with thee, i. e. in thy land, desires to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land;” i. e. his circumcision is equivalent in force to being born in the land; it secures his naturalization. Hence the buying of foreign servants would be a perpetual process of naturalizing them, and bringing them into the Hebrew community. They came to the Passover and were entitled to all the religious privileges of the children of Israel. Abraham himself circumcised, not his sons alone, but “all that were born in his house or bought with money of the stranger” (Gen. 17: 23, 27).——Thus the system reached forth its arms, gathered to its genial bosom and blest with religious nurture thousands of alien birth, some of whom attained renown among the servants of the God of Israel. We have the history of Rahab and Ruth, and to name no more of “Uriah the Hittite,” and of “Ittai the Gittite” [of Gath].
VIII. Judicial Procedure.
Under this general head the following topics should receive attention.
1. Judges. The reorganization suggested by Jethro has been noticed, and also its further modification to adjust it to the fixed residence in Canaan.——Between Joshua and Saul, there was an irregular series of Supreme Judges, closing with Samuel of whose circuit court, taking four cities in rotation, we have a notice in 1 Sam. 7: 15–17. The kings manifestly held this function of Supreme Judge. In the absence of other Judges, the High Priest seems to have served ex-officio. His powers, under the “Judges” above referred to and the kings, are not sharply defined; but probably religious and semi-religious questions came before him and his associates. The Judges between Joshua and Samuel were military men.——A special reorganization of the judiciary under Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 19: 5–11) will repay a careful reading. It provides subordinate judges in all the fortified cities; solemnly admonishes them to administer justice in the fear of God; establishes a supreme court in Jerusalem, where “he set of the Levites, priests, and chief of the fathers of Israel for the judgment of the Lord and for controversies when they returned to Jerusalem”—the last clause apparently referring to cases carried up for decision before this supreme court.——It should be noted that we read nothing of cases taken up to a higher court by appeal of a dissatisfied party; but only as carried up by the lower court itself when the case seemed too hard or too high for its decision. This principle went into operation in the reorganization by Moses (Ex. 18: 22, 26 and Deut. 1: 17)—“The cause that is too hard for you, bring it to me and I will hear it.” It passed into the general law as we may see (Deut. 17: 8–13) which provides for a supreme court at the religious center, the judges being “the priests, the Levites, and the judges that shall be in those days.”
The warnings against partiality and bribery were earnest and solemn—the penalty for these offenses being left, it would seem, to be visited upon the offender by the Almighty (Ex. 23: 6–8, and Lev. 19: 15, and Deut.1: 17, and 16: 18–20). They were not even allowed to favor the poor man in his cause against justice (Ex. 23: 3 and Lev. 19: 15)—there being sometimes a temptation to do this out of sympathy with his poverty and his necessities. But God put justice in law above sympathy for even the necessitous poor.——The public anathema fell on him who took a bribe to slay the innocent (Deut. 27: 25).
2. The seat of justice—the place for holding court—was “in the gates of the city.” Hence this being with all Orientals the place of public resort, the courts were public—open to all.
3. The processes of prosecution are not specially described. In cases of a personal, private character, the aggrieved party brought suit. In cases of a public nature “the elders of the city” bore responsibilities, as we see in the case of murder by an unknown hand. A remarkable case of appeal to the sensibilities of the whole nation is given Judg. 19: 25–30, under which the people woke to a consciousness of horrible wickedness in Israel, and their indignation became irrepressible; yet they carefully sought counsel of the Lord in this terrible case.