THE CIVIL INSTITUTES OF MOSES, CONTINUED.
VII. _Hebrew Servitude._
Servitude existed before Moses. It was no part of the mission of
the Hebrew code to _create_ it. Let it be forever admitted that the
laws given of God through Moses can not be held responsible for the
existence of slavery. They found it existing and proceeded therefore
to _modify it_; to soften its more rigid features; to extract its
carnivorous teeth; to ordain that the slave _had rights_ which the
master and the nation were bound to respect――in short, to tone down
the severities of the system from unendurable slavery to very tolerable
servitude.
* * * * *
_By what means was this change wrought?_ What new elements were
introduced to abate the severities of real slavery?
1. _Man-stealing was punished with death._ “He that stealeth a man and
selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to
death” (Ex. 21: 16). The law as recited in Deut. 21: 7 applies to a
man stealing one of his brethren of the children of Israel. As stated
in Ex. 21: 16 it is universal, with no limitation. Stealing a _man_ is
the crime. I see no reason to doubt that the law was intended to apply
to men of every nationality――to men as made in God’s image of whatever
nation.
This statute struck at the very root of real slavery. Both stealing
and selling contemplate property――assume the fact of a property value.
The spirit of the law is――Men shall never be degraded into merchandise.
Every body knows that all American slavery began with stealing men
from Africa and selling them. Servitude, involving a certain right to
service and property in service, there might be, despite of this Hebrew
law; but real slavery――property in man as distinct from property in his
services, there could not be under this law. Moreover, the severity of
this penalty must have thrown its shield of protection over the entire
system of servitude. It was a very palpable indication of God’s stern
displeasure against the whole system of chattelizing human beings.
2. The Hebrew law positively forbade the rendition of fugitives.
“Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that has escaped
from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you in
that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh
him best; thou shalt not oppress him” (Deut. 23: 15, 16).――――Observe
it was not only impossible to have any law for the reclamation of
fugitives――_i. e._ to have “a fugitive slave law” of the recent
American pattern; but the law was put on the other side. It
declared――“Thou shalt _not_ deliver him up to his master”――shalt not
give his master information and help the arrest; but shalt let him
choose his abode by his own free and manly will. If his hardships are
such under his bondage that he prefers to take his risk of finding a
better living elsewhere, let him try it. Let no man stand in his way.
He would not leave his master if his personal rights and interests were
properly cared for. But if his master is too selfish, or too cruel, or
too exacting of labor, or too stingy of bread or clothing, who shall
judge but the servant himself? Therefore let the servant better his own
condition if he can, and let all selfish, savage-hearted masters take
warning!――――Such laws exorcise the real spirit of slavery with blessed
rapidity. It would require but few such ameliorating statutes to tone
it down from unendurable slavery to very tolerable servitude.
The spirit of this law is altogether the spirit of the Great Lawgiver
when he found the Hebrews sorely oppressed in Egypt; smote off their
chains; brought them forth from their house of bondage, and placed them
beyond all reclamation. What he required his people now to do in behalf
of any oppressed servant was only in spirit what he had done for them.
3. Severe personal injuries gave the slave his freedom. “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.” So of the tooth (Ex. 21: 26, 27).
The eye and the tooth are but specimen illustrations of the principle.
A charge of shot in the leg could not be less under this law than
a passport to freedom.――――Moreover, the statutes very specifically
enjoined clemency and forbade rigor in the treatment of Hebrew servants
(Lev. 25: 39–43, 46).
4. Of wider sweep in its influence and of inexpressible value was
_the system of periodical emancipation_. The term of service for the
Hebrew-born was limited to six years. At the end of this term they went
out free. Servants of foreign birth (as we shall see) went out at the
Jubilee, each fiftieth year.――――The effect of this law was at once to
lift from the heart the terrible incubus of a life-long bondage――that
sense of a hopeless doom which knows no relief till death. Whatever the
amount of discomfort or suffering involved in servitude might have been,
the Hebrew servant had under this law the prospect of his freedom at no
distant day.――――Moreover the accompanying provisions of this law were
thoroughly humane. The servant who had sold himself through extreme
poverty (Lev. 25: 47–55) might be redeemed at any time by a friend,
or if he could command the means by extra labor or skill, he might
redeem himself.――――When his term expired, his master must not send him
away empty, but must furnish him liberally out of his flock and out
of his floor (grain), and even out of his _wine-press_――of any thing
and every thing wherewith the Lord had blessed the master, he was to
impart liberally to his manumitted servant (Deut. 15: 12–15). So the
servant would have a fair start in his new self-supporting life. It
was a fore-thoughtful provision, full of the milk of a more than human
kindness.
Apparently this periodic emancipation applied to every class of Hebrew
servants――to him who had sold himself because he had become too poor
to provide for his family; to him who had been taken and sold for debt;
and to him who had been sold into servitude for crime. This latter case,
however, is doubtful.
Noticeably, this law provides for the family rights of the servant. If
he had brought his wife with him into this state, he took her out with
himself, and of course his children also. If his master had given him a
wife, he retained her because of his property interest in her services,
and her children with her for humanity’s sake; for children under six
years of age need their mother’s care. Wives in that age of the world
were paid for.
Let it be noticed, the law assumes that possibly the servant may love
his wife and his children and even his _master_ so well that he chooses
not to leave them. Very well; if he will consent to come before the
judges and in a solemn judicial manner, testify to this love of his
heart, and moreover, will consent to endure the rather uncomfortable
operation of having his ear bored through with an awl, then he may
remain forever――_i. e._ during life. But the discomforts of this
operation were intended to bear somewhat against this unlimited
servitude. The law seemed to say to every servant――“It would probably
be better for you to be your own master and live in freedom, rather
than in even this very comfortable servitude.”――――Every provision
of this statute had a purpose. The servant must be brought before
the judges to express in this public manner his choice to remain in
servitude; for this method would make it impossible for the master to
misrepresent the will of his servant. Moreover, it seems probable that
boring the ear was no badge of honor but the opposite, and therefore
would bear against the man’s choice of perpetual servitude.
The law made special provision for the case of female servants. The
original statute (Ex. 21: 7–11) put her case on a different footing
from that of her brother. “She shall not go out as the men-servants do.”
The language――“If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant”――may
seem at first view to be a case of slave-sale, involving real property
in human flesh and bones. A closer examination will show that it
comes under the usage of _selling daughters to become wives_; for this
purchase “betrothed her to her master,” or to “his son,” and the law
made special provision for her rights as such; viz. that in case her
master is not pleased with her, he shall let her be redeemed, “and
shall have no power to sell her unto a strange nation.” If betrothed
to his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter; if the son take
another wife, he shall not abate from his duty as a husband toward her;
and if he refuse to do all the law demands, she is free――redeemed by
law, “without money.”――――These statutes of course shape themselves
to the existing usages in respect to polygamy, concubinage, and easy
divorce, sedulously protecting the rights of a female servant under
these most unfavorable usages.
It seems probable that these kind and considerate provisions failed
to protect her rights as fully as the spirit of the law intended, and
therefore a further modification appears at a later period; for Deut.
15: 17 declares that the six years’ emancipation law shall apply to her
also as truly as to her brother;――“and unto thy maid-servant thou shalt
do likewise.”
5. In view of the fact that what we may call “religious privileges”
included rest from labor and more or less of religious and social
festivity, the law was very specific in stipulating that the
man-servant and the maid-servant must share in all these equally with
the son and the daughter. We see this in the law of the Sabbath; in
the feast upon the second tithes (Deut. 12: 17, 18); and in two of the
great festivals, viz. the Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut.
16: 11, 14).――――Thus they were put religiously and socially upon the
same footing as children in the family. No ban of exclusion, no stigma
of caste, could attach to their condition so long as these statutes
were duly observed.
6. By usage and without the necessity of statute, Hebrew servants
held property. The old American doctrine――“The slave can own
nothing”――had no place in the system of Hebrew servitude. The proof
is twofold:――――(a) The statutes provided that “if able he might redeem
himself” (Lev. 25: 49). This permission would be only a taunting insult
if in fact no Hebrew servant could hold property.――――(b). The light
of history bears witness: Ziba was a servant of the house of Saul; but
he had servants under him――a round score; “fifteen sons and _twenty_
servants” (2 Sam. 9: 10 and 19: 17), and seems to have had charge of
cultivating Saul’s estates.
Thus manifold and effective were the humane provisions which softened
the severities of slavery, toning them down to a very tolerable system
of servitude.
_The Slavery that Existed before Moses._
We have spoken of Hebrew servitude as a _modified_ system――which
raises the question――“modified” _from what_? What was the pre-existing
system upon which these modifications were superinduced? A full answer
must include (a) The patriarchal system as it appears in the case of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: and (b) The system of Egypt and perhaps
other contemporary nations.
(a.) In the patriarchal system servitude could not possibly have been
compulsory. It must have been voluntary. Force, coercion, was utterly
out of the question. Abraham had neither army nor police to hold his
slaves in bondage. In fact they were his armed soldiers as against
freebooting incursions or any hostile assault whatever. Manifestly
they lived with him while they chose――no longer. Some of them rose to
bear important responsibilities, _e. g._ Eliezer (Gen. 24); his two
young men who went with him and Isaac to Moriah (Gen. 22).――――Isaac
“had great store of servant” (Gen. 26: 14), but there is not the
least intimation that they were entailed as part of his estate to
either Esau or Jacob; or that he received them by inheritance from
Abraham.――――Jacob had many servants (Gen. 30: 43), and in fact must
have had to help him in the care of his flocks and herds: but the
history shows that he did not take them with him into Egypt. Joseph’s
invitation left out the servants (Gen. 45: 10, 11.), and the record
specifies all the family except the servants and gives us the actual
enumeration――all servants omitted (Gen. 46: 5–26). Property in servants
in the American sense, there was none.
(b.) Of Egyptian slavery enough is known to show that they bought
slaves brought in from other nations, holding therefore a property
right in them, and that they constituted a menial class in society.
* * * * *
The condition of the Israelites under oppression there was peculiar.
Manifestly they were not held by individual Egyptians as their
personal property, but rather by the crown. The king of Egypt appears
as the great slave-holder of the Hebrew people, making levies upon
them for laborers at his pleasure, and exacting the severest tasks
with no limitations but his own will on the one hand and their possible
endurance on the other. The question of letting the people go was (at
least mainly) personal to himself and to his throne. His merciless
severity would naturally tend to make slavery in Egypt heartlessly
cruel. Laws to restrain masters from severity could not be thought
of under such kings. It is easy to see that when, at and after Sinai,
the Lord came to legislate for the Hebrew people, fresh from Egyptian
usages and laws, there was abundant occasion for statutes to modify
the severities of human bondage. With telling force the Lord could
say――Never oppress your servants; ye know how oppression feels!
_The Jubilee._――(Lev. 25).
In this chapter and here only we have an account of this peculiar
institution. The following points in it deserve special attention.
1. Its main scope and purpose were manifestly of the same sort with
those of the Sabbatic year――a year of rest from labor, of recuperation
for both the laborer and his lands, and of joy in the God of their
mercies. Particularly it made provision for restoring lands which had
been alienated by any means during the forty-nine intervening years. On
this eventful year all lands were to return to the original proprietor
and to his estate. The law provided that alienated lands might be
redeemed at any time for a price graduated by the years intervening
before the Jubilee. But if the poor man was unable to redeem his land
and had no relative or friend to redeem it for him before the Jubilee,
it then returned to him by the statute with no redemption price.
2. We must note its bearing upon Hebrew servants and its relation
to the seventh year emancipation law.――――It treats of two classes of
servants of Hebrew blood; those who had sold themselves, because of
their poverty, to a fellow Israelite; and those who for the same reason
had sold themselves to a wealthy foreigner residing in the land. As
to the former class, the law enjoins kind treatment; puts strongly
the distinction between the hired and the bond-servant――permitting
servants of Hebrew birth to be held in the former state but not in
the latter; and finally gave him and his children freedom at the
Jubilee.――――Inasmuch as the seventh year emancipation law applied to
this very class of servants, if it were enforced there could be no
Hebrew servants to go out at the Jubilee except those who had not yet
served six full years. This seems to be the bearing of the law of the
Jubilee upon Hebrew servants. We can not assume that it superseded the
seventh year law and took its place. The historic passage (Jer. 34:
8–17) would quite forbid such a construction.
As to the second class――those who had sold themselves to a
foreigner――the law gave the right of redemption to any of his friends
or to himself, and fixed the terms, providing for his freedom at the
Jubilee.
3. The most difficult point is, the bearing of the Jubilee, if any,
_upon servants of foreign birth_. Did it, or did it not, provide for
their emancipation?
The passage (Lev. 25: 9, 10) seems very strong in favor of _universal_
liberty, not omitting bond-servants of foreign birth. The words
are――“_Proclaim liberty through all the land unto all the inhabitants
thereof_.” This proclamation was made with sound of trumpet, ringing
out its shrill blast over all the land. Now let it be considered: If
foreigners were not included, and if the seventh year emancipation
law had been duly enforced, there could have been but a meager showing
of freedmen――only those few Hebrew servants who had not filled out
their six years of service. Is it credible that so much proclamation
and so much public display could have meant only the emancipation of
say one-tenth or one-twentieth of all the servants in the land?――――At
any point of their history the number of foreign servants ought
to have greatly exceeded the number of Hebrew birth――for two
reasons:――――(a.) The law encouraged the taking of foreigners into
this relation:――――and (b.) They continued in it at least till the
Jubilee――their maximum service being therefore forty-nine years,
awhile the maximum service of the Hebrew-born was only six. Therefore
I urge that a proclamation so high sounding and in terms so absolutely
universal can not have left out the great majority of bondmen in the
land.
The opponents of this view rely upon the words (v. 46)――“They shall be
your bondmen forever”――which they 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.
4. _Advocates._ We find no notice of professional advocates. The
“lawyers” of New Testament history were men versed in the law and
were teachers of law, but not by any means the modern advocate. Every
man might be his own advocate, and even women were heard before no
less a king than Solomon himself (1 Kings 3: 16–18). Noble-hearted,
disinterested men seem in Oriental life to have undertaken this service
voluntarily for the poor and the fatherless, of which Job gives a
touching description (Job 29: 7–17). Isaiah exhorts to this duty:
“Plead for the widow” (1: 17). It was the noble doctrine of this
system――“Our law judges no man before it hears him and knows what he
doeth” (Jn. 7: 51). Moses puts it thus――“Ye shall hear the small as
well as the great” (Deut. 1: 17). “If there arise a matter in judgment
between blood and blood, _between plea and plea_,” etc. (Deut. 17: 8).
5. _Of Witnesses_――the points of chief importance are these:
(1.) They testified under oath――the manner of administration being this:
The witness listened to the rehearsal of the words, and gave his oral
assent, “Amen,” or, “As thou sayest.” The passage (Lev. 5: 1) describes
the case of one who sins in this way, hearing the voice――_i. e._ the
words of the sacred oath, adjuring him to testify whether he has seen
or known any thing in this case. Then if he will not make known, “he
shall bear his iniquity.”――――A special statute for the case of a wife
suspected of conjugal infidelity shows how she is to be put under this
solemn oath (Num. 5: 19–22). She listens to the words of the oath and
responds, “Amen, amen.” (See also Prov. 29: 24 and Mat. 26: 63).
(2.) That the witnesses were examined separately and in presence of
the accused appears probable from a comparison of Mat. 26: 61 with
Mk. 14: 55–59. Jesus was present (Mat. 26: 62).
(3) As to the requisite number of witnesses――a criminal case of capital
crime required two besides the accuser (Deut. 17: 6 and 19: 15). Hence
the phrase――“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word
be established” (Mat. 18: 16).――――A supposed case is stated (Ex. 22:
10, 11) in which the complainant and the accused are the only witnesses.
Both are put under oath; but the testimony of the accused under oath
seems to be accepted as his vindication.
(4.) By another peculiar provision of the Mosaic statutes, the
witnesses in certain cases must be first to execute the penalty (Deut.
17: 7, and 13: 9, and Acts 7: 58, and John 8: 7). This provision was
doubtless morally wholesome.
IX. _Punishments._
A few points not already brought to view deserve a brief notice.
1. _Fines._――Some were fixed by statute. The highest known to the law
(one hundred shekels of silver) was laid on the man who falsely accused
his wife of previous unchastity (Deut. 22: 19). Another case among
violations of the seventh commandment appears (Deut. 22: 28, 29).――――In
the case of an ox goring some one fatally, the penalty of death upon
his owner might be commuted to a fine at the discretion of the judges
(Ex. 21: 28–31)――a wise provision because the real culpability of his
owner must vary with circumstances. In another case (Ex. 21: 22), the
suffering party and the judge fixed the amount of the fine.
2. The sin and the trespass offerings sustained a slight relation
to fines, since the party bore the cost of the animal sacrificed――a
young bullock, a kid of goats, etc. These laws may be seen in Lev. 4
and 5 and in Num. 15: 27–29. They pertain to sins of ignorance and of
remissness; never to presumptuous sins. In addition to the cost of the
sacrifice the penalty included a public confession of the offense, and
was well adapted to make a good moral impression.
The special cases which come under this general head of sin and
trespass offerings were――――(1.) Unintentional transgressions of
the Levitical law.――――(2.) The rash oath, ill-considered and not
conscientiously kept (Lev. 5: 4).――――(3.) Perjury in a witness;――not
however the case of false swearing to condemn the innocent, which
was punished by retaliation; but the offense of _not_ testifying what
he knew when put under oath (Lev. 5: 1).――――(4.) Debts due to the
sanctuary――a failure to pay tithes; the penalty being, one-fifth
added to the original amount and all paid, coupled with the trespass
offering (Lev. 5: 14–16).――――(5.) Denying any thing given in trust,
or retaining another man’s lost property which he may have found,
and similar offenses, coupled with false swearing (Lev. 6: 1–7); the
penalty being, to restore with one-fifth added and to make his trespass
offering.――――(6.) Adultery with a slave. The penalty――a sin-offering
and the punishment of death commuted to stripes.
* * * * *
3. _Stripes_ were made the penalty of certain specified crimes (Lev.
19: 20 and Deut. 22: 18). The law was careful to limit the number of
stripes to forty, giving as the reason――“Lest if thou shouldest exceed”
[this number] “then thy brother should seem vile unto thee;” _i. e._
not merely lest the man might lose his self-respect, but lest he lose
the respect of the community, and be hopelessly degraded. In usage
the Hebrews limited the number to thirty-nine――said to have been
administered by thirteen strokes of a triple cord.
4. Of retaliation [“lex talionis”] notice has been taken already.
5. _Excommunication_; excision; being cut off from his people. When
executed by God himself, it meant destruction by some providential
agency. Compare 1 Kings 14: 10 with 15: 29 and 2 Kings 9: 8–10.――――When
executed by human agency, it was capital punishment, usually by stoning
(Ex. 31: 14, and Lev. 17: 4, and 20: 17, 18).
6. The customary modes of capital punishment were two: _stoning_ and
_the sword_. (Deut. 13: 9, 10, and 17: 5, and Josh. 7: 25.) The sword
appears in later ages.
7. _Disgrace after death_ in some cases heightened the penalty,
_e. g._ by burning the dead body (Gen. 38: 24, and Lev. 20: 14, and
21: 9). That in these cases the death was by stoning and the burning
was only that of the dead body, seems to be sufficiently proved from
Josh. 7: 15, 25. “All Israel stoned him” [Achan and his family] “with
stones and burned them with fire _after_ they had stoned them with
stones.” Their very bodies seem to have been thought of as polluted and
_polluting_.――――Another method of posthumous disgrace was by hanging on
a tree (Num. 25: 4, 5 and Deut. 21: 22, 23). The body must not remain
suspended over night “that thy land be not defiled; for he that is
hanged is accursed of God.” See cases of the execution of this law in
Josh. 8: 29 and 10: 26, 27.
Several forms of punishment were introduced from other nations in later
ages which we may omit as foreign from our subject.
In closing this topic let it be noted that judicial procedure and
punishment were summary――both the trial and the execution being carried
through with apparently no delay. Compared on these points with the
most highly civilized countries of our age, the Hebrews have greatly
the advantage, and the efficiency of their law must have been for this
very reason surpassingly great. Their methods afforded but the smallest
possible hope of escape. Punishment followed close on the heels of
detection, and usually, we must presume, of crime.――――Furthermore,
these punishments, compared with those of other nations in that age
were by no means severe. Indeed the modes of capital punishment which
come to view in the Scriptures as existing among other nations were
terribly barbarous compared with those of the Hebrew code; _e. g._
burning in a fiery furnace; being torn in pieces by lions; being sawn
asunder; crucifixion.
The design of punishment is put in the plainest terms. In its severer
forms it is not the discipline of the criminal but the good of the
public――to deter the evil-minded from crime and so to make society safe
from outrage. In the case of presumptuous sins we read――“That man shall
die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel, and all the people
shall hear and fear and do no more presumptuously” (Deut. 17: 12, 13
and 19: 20).
It is worthy of special notice under this head that we find in this
code a considerable number of statutes _with no penalty attached_ which
human hands were to inflict. God reserved the infliction of the penalty
to himself. The fear of his displeasure, coupled with his promised
rewards for obedience were the only forces coercing obedience to these
statutes. They were left upon the conscience of the people, and upon
their fears and hopes under a system in which God’s hand in providence
was often made most palpable. For cases in point I may refer to the
laws against usury and requiring favors to be shown to the poor;――as
for example (Deut. 15: 9, 10): “Beware that there be not a thought in
thy wicked heart, saying――The seventh year, the year of release is at
hand, and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother and thou givest
him naught, and he cry unto the Lord against thee and it be sin upon
thee. Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved
when thou givest unto him; because that for this thing the Lord thy God
will bless thee in all thy works,” etc.
The moral power of this invisible force upon the heart and conscience
of the people we shall be able to appreciate more justly if we
carefully study the words which stand (Ex. 23: 20–25), _i. e._ at the
close of the first catalogue of the “statutes and judgments.” It seems
to come in here legitimately as a moral force to induce a conscientious
and careful obedience to these statutes. “Behold” (calling special
attention) “behold, I send an angel before thee to keep thee in the
way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of
him, and obey his voice; provoke him not, for he will not pardon your
transgressions, for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey
his voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to thine
enemies,” etc.――――This angel, bearing authority to pardon or not pardon
sins, and of whom the very God could say――“My name is in him” could
be no less than really divine. _Name_ in Hebrew usage as applied to
God involves and implies his real nature――his essential attributes.
Corresponding to this view of “the angel” in this passage is the
injunction to “beware of him and to obey his voice”; and also his power
to forgive sins――“for who can forgive sins but God only”? This passage
therefore affords decisive proof that the personage who manifested
himself to Israel in the pillar of cloud and of fire; whose presence
abode in their tabernacle; whose voice they heard in this holy law――was
truly divine, and yet was mysteriously distinct from the speaker――the
“I”――of this remarkable passage. Truly he was God, manifest――if
not precisely in human flesh――yet in palpable forms, in tangible
demonstrations, in voice of power and tongue of flame; in the luminous
pillar; in perpetual agencies of protection and of supply as to earthly
need; and, not least, as their Ruler and their Lord whose voice in
these statutes it behooved them to hear and obey as they would hope
to be blessed in their national life and in any desirable prosperity.
Hence it was both practicable and wise under this Hebrew system to
leave some statutes upon the naked conscience of the people with no
attempt to enforce obedience save the appeal to this invisible Presence.
These remarks will naturally suggest to the thoughtful mind a train
of inquiries of this sort:――――How can we account for it that the books
of Moses allude so very rarely to the future state of man’s being――to
heaven and to hell? Had even the best men of those times any definite
belief in the future life and in its retribution for deeds done in
this? How happens it that both the law and the rewards or penalties
of their civil code, and indeed of their religious code as well, make
so much account of present retribution and so little of the future?
These points will be treated more conveniently and in a more
satisfactory manner after the religious code shall have been
examined and after we have surveyed the history of Israel in the
wilderness――_i. e._ at the close of the present volume.
There are two historic questions pertaining to this civil code of
the Hebrews which have sufficient interest to justify a few moments’
attention; viz.
I. _How far was this system indebted to Egypt?_
II. _How far have the best civil codes of the most civilized nations of
all subsequent history been indebted to this Hebrew code?_
I. As to the possible relations of this Hebrew code to Egyptian
life and jurisprudence, perhaps the word “indebted” is too strong.
It is by no means intended to disparage the divine originality
of this law or of any and every feature of the system. I assume
two things:――――(1.) That Moses, “learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians,” may have had intimate personal acquaintance with very
many things in civil jurisprudence which the Lord taught him in and
through his Egyptian life rather than by immediate and independent
revelation:――――and (2.) That the people became familiar with some
valuable usages and customs connected with Egyptian law and Egyptian
life, and by this means were prepared to receive and adopt them under
this new code and in this new style of life in Canaan, when, without
this previous culture, these laws and usage could not have gone into
operation so readily if at all.
The Hebrew code and its system of jurisprudence――as also the entire
Hebrew national life――were benefited by the Egyptian in the following
points:
1. The example and silent influence of a full civil, written code
of law. That Egypt had such a code admits of no question. The Hebrew
patriarchs, prior to the sojourn in Egypt, had nothing of the sort.
Their life in Egypt therefore gave them their first lessons――their
first ideas, of a complete code of written law. We shall be in small
danger of over-estimating the value of these lessons and ideas in their
bearings upon a higher civilization.
2. Egypt gave to the Hebrew mind the example of a well digested system
of judicial procedure, established courts and forms of trial; laws put
in force by the aid of judges, witnesses, and the systematic execution
of penalties.――――Remarkably the last quarter of a century has brought
to light documentary evidence of a judicial trial in Egypt as far back
as the age of Moses, developing the most finished method; well digested
forms of procedure; a state trial, conducted with great dignity and
decorum; and the whole proceeding put on record so carefully that this
original document is before the world in perfect preservation at this
day.[42]
3. Egypt gave to the children of Israel the example of a national life
_based on agriculture_, as distinct from and indeed opposed to the
wandering, unsettled life of the shepherd. The nomadic mode of life,
perpetuated by necessity to this day in the deserts of Arabia, in which
individual right to the soil is unknown and no family has a fixed home,
each living for the time where its flocks may chance to find herbage
and water――this had been the style of the patriarchs before Jacob went
to Egypt. It was not the best for social and mental culture. God had a
better life for his people prospectively in Canaan, and their residence
in Egypt introduced them to it and gave them a preparation for it. It
made subsistence less precarious; blended the cultivation of the soil
with the care of flocks and herds; provided for a denser population;
greatly enhanced the opportunities for social culture and for such a
religious system as that of Israel. In a word it provided for a much
higher Christian civilization than could have been possible under the
strictly nomadic mode of life. To Egypt, the nation was indebted for
the example and for the training into this agricultural mode of life.
4. In another important respect, the example of the national life
of Egypt was a preordained training for their own national life in
Canaan:――it was that of a people providing for their own wants; living
within themselves; maintaining substantially non-intercourse with
other nations, and for the most part excluding foreign commerce. Such
was Egypt during the residence of Israel there, and such God wisely
designed Israel to be in her promised land of Canaan. As to Israel
in Canaan, the purposes of this policy are obvious――protection from
the contaminating influences of idolatry, not to say also from the
contaminations of luxury and wealth.
5. In Egypt, the priests were the learned class of the empire, and
held the highest responsibilities in the civil and judicial as well
as the religious life of the nation. A system essentially the same was
introduced into Israel, the priests and the Levites holding the same
place in the nation which they had seen held by the priests in Egypt.
6. It is a very noticeable fact in the history of the legal life in
Egypt, that though magic arts were in a sense tolerated and indeed
were resorted to by the king in his emergencies, yet their influence
in society proved to be so pernicious as to demand legal restraint.
We have the record of a man indicted “for many crimes and wickednesses
committed through his magic arts and writings, such as paralyzing limbs,
empowering a slave to do audacious things,” etc. The decision of the
court in his case reads――“For his various abominations, the greatest
in the world, he is condemned to death.”――――It will be remembered that
the Mosaic law held _all_ practice of magic arts to be a penal offense,
punishable with death (Ex. 22: 18 and Lev. 20: 27).
7. In some points the spirit of the Mosaic code was so greatly in
advance of the Egyptian as to stand related to it, not in the way
of imitation or even modification, but of direct opposition. It
held squarely the opposite doctrine and put forth statutes of an
opposite character. Thus, the Egyptian code legalized slavery, and
had its special law for the reclamation of fugitives. Among the
recent discoveries in Egyptian antiquities “A warrant for the arrest
of fugitive slaves” has been brought to light. From the tone of this
warrant and from other evidence, collateral, it is inferred that
slave-holders were obliged by law to register them in a list kept by
government and disputes with regard to ownership must be brought before
the judges. The rights of the master in his slave were not absolute.
It was not by virtue of orders direct from the owner that search was
instituted and arrest made, but by the authority of a high functionary
of government, to whom the case is reported and who issues his mandate.
Thus the government itself put forth its hand to recover a slave
who had escaped from any citizen.――――It was therefore specially
pertinent that the law of Jehovah to Israel should plant itself on
ground precisely the reverse of this:――_no reclamation of fugitives
whatsoever_. Thou shalt _not_ do what Egyptian slave-holders were
authorized by the highest authority of the kingdom to do――force back
the escaped fugitive to his unendurable bondage.
In the line of their religious institutions Israel stood related to
Egypt in numerous particulars, borrowing some things for the adornment
of its tabernacle from Egyptian art; and on the other hand, guarding
by stringent prohibitions against many Egyptian usages associated with
idolatry. These points will be in place after we have considered the
religious institutions of Moses.
II. The second proposed historic question, viz. How far have the best
civil codes of all history and how far has the world at large been
indebted to this Hebrew code?――opens a field of inquiry quite too wide
to be fully canvassed within our prescribed limits. A few hints may
be useful perhaps to guide the further inquiries of the reader. The
following points are put comprehensively and suggestively:
1. Moses sought to impress it upon his people that this system far
surpassed that of any other nation. “Behold, I have taught you statutes
and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me.... Keep, therefore,
and do them, for this is your wisdom and understanding in the sight
of all the nations who shall hear of all these statutes and shall say,
Surely this nation is a wise and understanding people, for what great
nation hath their God so nigh to them as the Lord our God is to us
in all that we call upon him for? And what great nation hath statutes
and judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this
day”? (Deut. 4: 5–8.)
2. The Hebrew system surpassed all others, especially in this――that
_it gave to human government and law the sanction of God’s authority_,
and enforced them upon the human heart and conscience by this most
impressive and benign of all influences.
3. Preparatory to this result it maintained against the whole Pagan
world the doctrine of _one God_――perfect in character, supreme in power,
righteous in all his administration of rewards and punishments. Only
so could it make the idea of God a really wholesome power and his
authority effective in sustaining civil government.
4. This divinely given code rested upon justice and equity, and
determined every thing by this standard. So doing, it ruled out at once
a multitude of interests and ends which human laws have often sought
to secure. Its example therefore, in so far at least, was simply and
supremely beneficent.
5. In yet further detail, it recognized the common and equal rights of
all men, irrespective of condition, rank, wealth――holding constantly
the doctrine, “_No respect of persons_.”
6. It appreciated at their just value the rights of the poor and of all
that large class who look only to God and to human law for protection.
We come now to the question of historic fact: _Did this Hebrew code
and government send forth its influence upon the nations of ancient
history?_ Did it in any perceptible degree leaven the best systems of
human law and jurisprudence.――――If the proof for the affirmative falls
short of positive certainty, what is its amount of probability?
Here we may fitly consider――
(a.) That God chose for Israel the land of Canaan, in the center of the
ancient world of mind; immediately between Egypt on the one hand and
Babylon, Assyria, Persia――all the great nations of Western Asia――on the
other; and closely contiguous to ancient Greece and Rome.
(b.) That David and Solomon became known to all the great powers of the
world of their time. Solomon’s renown turned largely on the fact that
his people were prosperous and happy, his government well ordered, and
his own wisdom in all affairs of state unsurpassed.――――It is simply
impossible that such examples should drop powerless upon the nations of
the earth.
(c.) That at a later period the personal history of Mordecai, of Esther,
and especially of Daniel in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar and of Cyrus
show that the Jews, their religion, their God, and their law, did
impress themselves upon the greatest centers of influence and power in
their time.
(d.) This dispersion of the Jews at and after their captivity planted
them in large numbers in the chief seats of human science and learning;
in Egypt on the South-West; in Babylon, Persia, and adjacent countries
of the East. It is historically certain that in the age of the
Ptolemies, a large body of learned Jews lived in Egypt; that the Old
Testament was translated into Greek by request of Ptolemy Philadelphus;
that the Egypt of that age was the school of wisdom and jurisprudence
for Ancient Greece and was herself the pupil of Moses.[43]――――That
the best Greek authors knew Moses is matter of history. Longinus
quotes from Moses (Gen. 1: 3) in his treatise on Sublimity; Strabo
makes honorable mention of him as a law-giver; and Diodorus Siculus
acknowledges him to be “the first of legislators from whom all laws
had their origin.” Numenius a Greek philosopher of the Pythagorean
school, speaking of Plato, exclaims――“What is Plato but Moses
Atticising”――_i. e._ teaching in Attic Greek? Origen believed that
Plato drew largely from Moses.――――The list of eminent Grecian authors
and savans who went personally to Egypt for wisdom and science is
long――such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Plato,
Herodotus. There they came into contact with learned Jews and not
improbably with the writings of Moses.[44] Prof. Wines (p. 335) cites
the learned Grotius as saying――“The most ancient Attic laws, whence
in aftertimes the Roman were derived, owe their origin to Moses’ law.
That the Grecians, especially the Attics, took their laws from Moses
is credible. This is the reason why the Attic laws and the Roman
twelve Tables which sprang from them so much resemble the Hebrew
laws.”――――This similarity between the Attic laws and those of Moses has
been noticed by many other learned men, _e. g._ Josephus, Clement of
Alexandria, Augustine, Sir Matthew Hale, Archbishop Potter. The last
named in his “Grecian Antiquities” has adduced many points of Grecian
law which seem to have been taken from Moses――viz. the laws of divorce;
the purgation oath compared with “the oath of jealousy” among the
Hebrews; the harvest and vintage festival; the law of first-fruits; the
law requiring the best offerings for God; the portion for the priests;
protection to the man-slayer at their altars; requiring priests to be
unblemished; the agrarian law; laws regulating descent of property, and
prohibiting marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity.――――Plato
in his ideal “Republic” is thought to have drawn largely from
Moses.――――Clement of Alexandria accosts him (by Apostrophe)――“But as
for laws, whatever are true were conveyed to thee from the Hebrews.”
These historic facts seem to indicate the definite channel through
which the laws of Moses reached the Grecian mind in its earliest stages
of culture and thus wrought themselves into the great fountains of
Grecian and Roman civilization and jurisprudence.
(e.) There seem to be strong grounds for the general statement that
the greatest reformers of all known history have acted upon the ideas
of Moses, and have probably drawn their doctrines more or less directly
from that fountain. I will venture to place in this category Zoroaster,
Plato, Confucius, Buddha, and Mahomet. These men were in their time
reformers of society, of morals, and of jurisprudence. Their influence
led _toward_ if not fully _unto_ the doctrine of _one God_, and by
natural consequence to a purer morality and juster views of law and
equity; of love to one’s neighbor and purity of life.――――I regret that
my limits forbid any attempt to present the historic evidence which
might support more or less fully these broad, comprehensive statements.
The historic evidence that Zoroaster, Plato, and Mahomet drew from
Moses is very strong. Of the great Indian reformer and of the Chinese
comparatively little is known.
(f.) Of Roman law as finally embodied in the great code of Justinian,
it has been already suggested that its best things came from Moses and
the Septuagint through Greece and the Egypt of the Ptolemies.――――I add
two other remarks:――(a) That in the age of Justinian (first half of
the sixth Christian century) primitive Christianity had quite fully
leavened the public sentiment and thus the jurisprudence of the then
civilized world.――――(b.) That when Justinian created a commission
of learned jurists to “collect the scattered monuments of ancient
jurisprudence,” he recommended them in settling any point to regard
neither the number nor the reputation of the jurisconsults who had
given opinions on the subject, but to be guided solely by reason and
equity.[45]
(g.) Of Alfred the Great (reigned A. D. 871–901) the central testimony
of history is that he was severely _just_. Despite of surroundings
almost barbarous, he rose by dint of his irrepressible manliness to
become the greatest legislator and scholar of his age, and so was able
to lay the foundations for the best and truest glory of the English
name. The common law of England and of the English-speaking world
began its development under his hand. One fact is of itself a volume of
testimony to the spirit of this ancient law. When after a long struggle
Wilberforce brought the question before the English bench――Does English
law sanction human bondage? the world heard the answer――_Never_.
“Slaves can not breathe in England.” What moment they take in her pure
air, they are free! The spirit of her law from the days of Alfred was
justice and righteousness between a man and his neighbor. The laws
of Moses were in Alfred’s eye; the spirit of those laws filled and
fired his noble soul. It is currently said that the telling words
which describe the needy as “_God’s poor_” are original (for our mother
Saxon tongue) with him. Moses had reiterated the sentiment long ages
before.――――Sir Matthew Hale has traced the influence of the Bible
generally on the laws of England. Sismondi testifies that Alfred, in
causing a republication of the Saxon laws, inserted several statutes
taken from the code of Moses, to give new strength and cogency to the
principles of morality.
“Thus have the principles of the Mosaic code found their way to
a greater or less extent into the jurisprudence of all civilized
nations.” [Wines――p. 337.]
It falls within our plan to speak briefly of the civil code of Moses
_as a series of progressive revelations of God to man_.
I have spoken of the law of Sinai as a manifestation of God to man at
once sublime in its majesty and most benignly practical in its moral
bearings. The civil code――“the statutes and judgments”――carry out yet
more fully the practical unfoldings of God’s wisdom and of his sense
of justice and right as between man and man. It is not easy to select
the most striking cases to illustrate this point, for the whole code
is radiant with divine wisdom and aglow with testimonies of his love,
manifesting itself in wisest legislation for human welfare.――――Confining
our attention to the second table of the law of Sinai――man’s relation
to his fellow-man――we may consider how much there is here adapted to
conserve all the best elements of society――in securing the honor due
to parents and rulers; in guarding human life and providing the means
for its protection; in making the marriage covenant sacred; on the
one hand shielding the sexual relation of the race against abuses
most pernicious; and on the other, providing agencies which may enrich
man’s social life with priceless blessings. So also the statutes in
detail respecting rights of property and rights of reputation are
replete with fresh testimonies to the wisdom and the love of the Great
Father.――――Speaking frankly of the impressions made on my mind by this
study of the code of Moses, I must say that no part has seemed to me
more deeply imbued with the tenderness and pity of the Lord than the
provisions made for the poor, and the restrictions and limitations
upon personal servitude. In all his utterances on these points the Lord
assumes that no interests of man more need his protection than these,
and he comes promptly to the front to give it. He would have us know
that over these interests his watchful eye never sleeps; his quick ear
is never shut to any cry for help. The rich and the mighty may get on
without his special aid; the poor are his own wards and shall never
lack his sympathy nor his present hand. Human laws are in great part
worthless――at least they miss their most important function――unless
they make it their chief endeavor to protect the interests and rights
of those who, powerless in themselves, drop upon the strong arm of law
for their defence. Society and legislation might as well not be as to
forget that they exist as appointed of God mainly for the sake of the
poor and the otherwise unprotected and unbefriended. Such needy ones
every human society will have for the moral trial of those who control
society, and I may add, to draw out the sympathy of the Great Father.
These revelations of himself stand forth in sunlight throughout this
Mosaic code. They are a glorious advance upon all that the world had
seen before. The true mission of civil law is brought out here with
great fullness; for it seems to be every-where assumed that if laws
protect and befriend the poor, they protect and befriend _all_. If the
spirit of law faithfully guards their interests, it can not well fail
to guard all interests that need the guardianship of human legislation.
It is a priceless boon to the race to have these ideas so beautifully
set forth and so substantially embodied in a code of laws fresh from
the hand and from the heart of the Infinite Father.