• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Exodus 21:4 "If his master gives him a lady...her kids belong to the master"???

IshChayil

IshChayil

Seasoned Member
Real Person*
Male
Came across this verse in my studies today and wanted to float it on other minds.
Exodus 21:4
אִם־אֲדֹנָיו֙ יִתֶּן־ל֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֔ה וְיָלְדָה־ל֥וֹ בָנִ֖ים א֣וֹ בָנ֑וֹת הָאִשָּׁ֣ה וִילָדֶ֗יהָ תִּהְיֶה֙ לַֽאדֹנֶ֔יהָ וְה֖וּא יֵצֵ֥א בְגַפּֽוֹ׃

"If his master gives him a woman, and she gives him children, sons or daughters, the woman and her children will belong to her master and he(the male slave) shall go out alone (lit: with his own body)"

Ok so surely I'm missing something. Sorry if this was posted already, there are a lot of posts to go through and I didn't think the verse would be the right way to search.
So I briefly looked through a few classical commentaries (mikraot gedalot, it's classical Rabbinical commentaries) and all I've gotten out of it are 2 things:
1) The male is a Hebrew and the female is surely a Canaanite or else she'd also be freed after 7 years also.
2) The master wanted children slaves to increase his slave army. Well duh, but why would the bible be OK with that? I've chewed on it a bit and was thinking, "OK the presumption is the Canaanites were into bad stuff so if we assume the Master is a good, Law abiding, G-d fearing man, then it's better spiritually for Canaanites to be raised in a spiritual household than in a place worshiping other gods."
But then there is the issue of family. What about the man who fathered the kids? We are told he has the option to be a slave forever if he wants to stay with his family but that seems to be oppression. You could have masters using this as a way to get free Hebrew slaves forever. Maybe he wants someone who can read and write, i.e. a Hebrew, surely more expensive than an illiterate Canaanite so he takes on a Hebrew slave and entices him with a little hottie Canaanite, BAM! Literate slave forever sucker.

If anyone can help me make sense of this verse / section I'd be grateful.
 
I've also considered: "the guy is bad with money, hence he became a slave, so better to be a slave with family expenses all covered than to have to fend for them on his own" but that doesn't quite cut it for me. I think there must be a deeper explanation.
I'm hoping not to have an answer like "this is all just foreshadowing of Christ, we are his slaves, etc. better to be in the master's house" because this was a very real situation that people were under for centuries.
While there very well may be a deeper foreshadowing, let's look at the real people who had to live under such a law and see if we can understand the proper implementation of this law in that society as given by a righteous, loving G-d.

Also, you may say, "well he knew what he was getting in to when the master offered him said hottie, he knew if he fell in love he'd be a slave forever"...but maybe then that's true for all men (kidding ladies) :p
But I think that is also unsatisfactory.

Thanks folks!
 
I think some context will help.

Exodus 21: 2-6
2. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

The servant/slave in question is Hebrew.

3. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

God sets the precedent that the servant leaves service in the same state he came.

4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

If the master chooses to give the servant a wife, that wife and children still belong to the master because the servant also belongs to the master. They aren't the master's wife and kids, but they are his since the woman was his to give and the kids belong to those who belong to him.

5. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

And here we get a provision for the sake of a servant who wants to keep this family he has been given.

6. Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

So, if a Hebrew servant is given (and accepts) a wife from his master, he must give her up if he chooses to leave service because she was never entirely his to begin with. If sercant wished to keep his wife, he could do so by committing himself to lifelong service.

The idea of using the servant to generate more slave labor does not fit the context. The servant is clearly not a Canaanite, so it would not be lifelong service for him or his kids. To do that would break other laws, and the law does not permit breaking the law.

I'd like to also point out that these slaves are protected from mistreatment. They were not so bad off as the African slaves of the old American South or the Jews in Egypt. Slavery was actually more like indentured servitude in those times, often representing a chance for a poor man to better himself and be cared for while contributing to his master's house.

It actually follows the pattern of God's role over our own marriages, since we are His servants and all good and perfect gifts come from Him. A man who serves God knows that every wife and child he has is God's to take back, because God is a just master and will not be cheated by any false servants who want to run off with one of God's women.
 
TL:DR, the law is actually in place to ensure that the master is not defrauded and the wife and kids will be cared for if dad decides to peruse other ventures.
 
If his master hath given him a wife . . . A simple understanding could come from the word given. We assume that the master out of the goodness of his heart has just decided arbitrarily to have babies from these two servants so he hooks them up! However, I think that precludes the idea that the male servant may have petitioned the master for her. The word 'given' can also be used as granted. If this is the correct perspective, if the master is petitioned for one of his handmaids, and consents for whatever reason, the master is protected from losing what he has been entrusted with.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
If his master hath given him a wife . . . A simple understanding could come from the word given. We assume that the master out of the goodness of his heart has just decided arbitrarily to have babies from these two servants so he hooks them up! However, I think that precludes the idea that the male servant may have petitioned the master for her. The word 'given' can also be used as granted. If this is the correct perspective, if the master is petitioned for one of his handmaids, and consents for whatever reason, the master is protected from losing what he has been entrusted with.
Click to expand...
I like the train of thought. I hadn't thought about the idea that the servant probably asked for her in the first place so is granted this favor.
Don't know why that didn't occur to me. Good point.

So we have 2 persons' rights so to speak.
A) the masters who gave a lady to one of his Hebrew servants (and the servant probably asked for her, a non-Hebrew servant [since she's not being freed])
B) the Hebrew servant
So it's a balancing of rights between the master's rights and the servant's rights. I think the thing that still bothers me a bit (when I say that I just mean I'm not getting something, of course G-d is perfect); is that the only option the servant/slave has when he is freed, is to leave his family or become a lifelong servant. I wonder how this was practically applied. Like maybe the master would negotiate for the value of the Canaanite servant like Jacob worked 7 years for Rachael and Leah? So the servant could say, "Kind master look I finished my 7 years of service and I dream of having my own farm but I don't want to leave my family. How about we make a deal. I'll work for you another 7 years in exchange for my wife's freedom?"

Thanks. It's closer to palatable for me now.
 
Centurion127 said:
I think some context will help.

The idea of using the servant to generate more slave labor does not fit the context. The servant is clearly not a Canaanite, so it would not be lifelong service for him or his kids. To do that would break other laws, and the law does not permit breaking the law.

I'd like to also point out that these slaves are protected from mistreatment. They were not so bad off as the African slaves of the old American South or the Jews in Egypt. Slavery was actually more like indentured servitude in those times, often representing a chance for a poor man to better himself and be cared for while contributing to his master's house.

It actually follows the pattern of God's role over our own marriages, since we are His servants and all good and perfect gifts come from Him. A man who serves God knows that every wife and child he has is God's to take back, because God is a just master and will not be cheated by any false servants who want to run off with one of God's women.
Click to expand...
Ok I want to respond to this comment:
"The idea of using the servant to generate more slave labor does not fit the context. The servant is clearly not a Canaanite, so it would not be lifelong service for him or his kids. To do that would break other laws, and the law does not permit breaking the law."
Ok so here is the deal; the classical Rabbinical commentaries make the point that the woman must have been a Canaanite since she is not getting freed any time soon and Canaanites could be slaves until a Jubilee year so possibly their whole life.
So I think the reasoning is that if the father was a Hebrew and the mother was a Canaanite well it's true that some day the children may be set free if they were considered Hebrews, but the mother would not be, and I'm guessing not too many house dads back then so they children would stay with their mother presumably. So my concern about lifelong slave labor is that the law says if he chooses to stay with his family he can do the whole "earing in the doorpost" procedure and then he is a slave for life. So then you have both parents are slaves and the kids grow up as slaves...will they really ever leave?

See what I was getting at?
The Hebrew man's only choice if he wants to keep his family is to do the "slave for life" procedure. Sorry I didn't quote that verse in my original post but that's what I was alluding too.
 
So you're forgetting that female slaves weren't freed after 7 years, not even Hebrew ones. They were considered to be wives even if their master never slept with them. I believe this is the category David's female servants that Absolom slept with fell under. I can't be sure of that though. Also if the female slave had been born to a permanent slave then she ostensibly would be permanent. One of the things that gets missed in scripture, at least to western minds, is how differently God treats men and women.
 
I agree with @ZecAustin that the females weren't free'd unless they came in with the man. However, they weren't necessarily considered to be wives, just handmaids who could possibly, maybe, eventually become the wife/concubine of the master or his son. From the passage being discussed, it would appear that she could be given to a man servant also as consort/wife.
The situation with Absalom and Davids concubines was a repeat of Reuben and Bilhah, Jacob's concubine. Once they had been defiled, David and Jacob could not sleep with them again so they both put their concubines away (not divorce, just abstinence) and continued to provide for them till their death.
I'm not certain that the passage can be fully understood without a first-hand knowledge of the culture in that era. While the rabbinic accounts possess valuable information and insight, it is important to note that they were not firsthand accounts and their culture in many ways were modified from the time that the law was given some 15-1700 years prior. It could be that when the man was released, if it was not near or at the Jubilee year, he would still not be in possession of the means to support them as he would not have his property or farm returned to his possession. If the master allowed the family to go out with him, he most likely would be sending the wife and children out to simply be sold into servitude by the father one at a time to other masters who wouldn't be as concerned about their welfare.
 
It doesn't say that the servant had to except the wife to begin with. In other words, the servant knew, going in, that taking the wife was essentially an offer by the master to remain in his house for life. Often times, I'm sure, living conditions in the master's house were better than making it on one's own. If you only had seven years maximum to serve and you didn't like your master, don't except the wife he offers and wait for your freedom.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
It doesn't say that the servant had to except the wife to begin with. In other words, the servant knew, going in, that taking the wife was essentially an offer by the master to remain in his house for life. Often times, I'm sure, living conditions in the master's house were better than making it on one's own. If you only had seven years maximum to serve and you didn't like your master, don't except the wife he offers and wait for your freedom.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I addressed this issue in my first post. I didn't really see it as a credible defense; especially if we have to defend this verse to an agnostic person. Men are men; and imagine 7 years of celibacy and then master "buys" a beautiful Canaanite gal and she's batting her eyelashes. We have to be realistic. The guy is a slave, doing hard work in the sun likely; life is not grand... then there she is. Is he really going to make that calculation?
 
I think Deuteronomy 15 also plays a role.

On the one hand, a female slave represents a considerable investment on the part of the master. Would the master even consider allowing a man to have one of them as wife if that investment would simply evaporate as a result?
Probably not. It is bad business. In that construct you would have incentive for keeping young lovebirds irredeemably apart.

However, if you allow them to marry, you would want your investment to not evaporate, right?

So, what's to stop the now freed Hebrew man from paying to free the woman and whatever kids from his former master?

In Deut 15 we see that the freed man is to be supplied liberally with resources upon departure. Could such resources be used to pay redemption/bride price if the man truly did love his family? And if he didn't, then she and kids still had the covering of her master's house.

Furthermore, I studied Biblical slavery during my time in University. Some of the wealthiest individuals in that world were slaves. Being a slave didn't prohibit one from earning extra income and even becoming slave owners themselves.
There are few things that motivate young men as having a family to provide for. Perhaps this was a carrot to help galvanize them into wanting to be very productive in order to be able to buy their family out also and provide for them once they were out of their master's house. This also would, by extension, be profitable for the master, while allowing for a young family to later succeed on their own when, as individuals, they were previously unable.
 
IshChayil said:
Came across this verse in my studies today and wanted to float it on other minds.
Exodus 21:4
אִם־אֲדֹנָיו֙ יִתֶּן־ל֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֔ה וְיָלְדָה־ל֥וֹ בָנִ֖ים א֣וֹ בָנ֑וֹת הָאִשָּׁ֣ה וִילָדֶ֗יהָ תִּהְיֶה֙ לַֽאדֹנֶ֔יהָ וְה֖וּא יֵצֵ֥א בְגַפּֽוֹ׃

"If his master gives him a woman, and she gives him children, sons or daughters, the woman and her children will belong to her master and he(the male slave) shall go out alone (lit: with his own body)"

Ok so surely I'm missing something. Sorry if this was posted already, there are a lot of posts to go through and I didn't think the verse would be the right way to search.
So I briefly looked through a few classical commentaries (mikraot gedalot, it's classical Rabbinical commentaries) and all I've gotten out of it are 2 things:
1) The male is a Hebrew and the female is surely a Canaanite or else she'd also be freed after 7 years also.
2) The master wanted children slaves to increase his slave army. Well duh, but why would the bible be OK with that? I've chewed on it a bit and was thinking, "OK the presumption is the Canaanites were into bad stuff so if we assume the Master is a good, Law abiding, G-d fearing man, then it's better spiritually for Canaanites to be raised in a spiritual household than in a place worshiping other gods."
But then there is the issue of family. What about the man who fathered the kids? We are told he has the option to be a slave forever if he wants to stay with his family but that seems to be oppression. You could have masters using this as a way to get free Hebrew slaves forever. Maybe he wants someone who can read and write, i.e. a Hebrew, surely more expensive than an illiterate Canaanite so he takes on a Hebrew slave and entices him with a little hottie Canaanite, BAM! Literate slave forever sucker.

If anyone can help me make sense of this verse / section I'd be grateful.
Click to expand...
Our creator is our master and out of his grace, lets us choose good or evil, his way or ours. That is why we are here living our time script, to choose.
Uncle beastie's modern slave model is a more productive one, free range slaves.
 
@IshChayil, you're too fixed on the idea that the woman is a Canaanite. No female servants went out after 7 years, Israelite or Canaanite. This only applied to Israelite males.
Exodus 21:7-11 said:
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
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.
And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
Click to expand...
There was an expectation that a female slave would end up married to somebody in the household - the master, or his son in this passage, but clearly she could also end up married to another slave. She was not to be simply released into the world, she was to either become a wife or be redeemed (ie purchased back by her father). If she was not given a husband, or was mistreated, then she was to be released, but this was not the intended situation and was purely a last resort to ensure she was not abused.

We really have to remember that "slavery" then was absolutely nothing like what we have grown up being told slavery is. Basically, back then you had a big household. Everyone in the household worked and contributed - and was under the authority of the male head of the family. People could come in as wives, children, or be purchased as indentured servants, but in all cases they were becoming a member of the extended household. Didn't mean they were being mistreated by staying in there. A male slave, after seven years, could choose to leave and make his own way in the world or stay if he found that household a good place to be for the rest of his life.

Others have very well explained the reasons for the female remaining the property of the master, I won't repeat that, just giving a bit of context that may help people trying to wrap their heads around it, because the entire concept is so foreign to us in our culture.
 
Also, the intent of the law wouldn't have been for her to be a Canaanite, because they were supposed to exterminate the Canaanites (the fact they did not do that completely doesn't affect the law). So she could have been a Moabite, Ammonite or Egyptian for instance, if she were not an Israelite, but she would not be supposed to be a Canaanite. I stress this because the context we assume may affect our ability to properly understand what it's talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top