Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
7. if a man sell his daughter ] as he easily might do, either from actual poverty, or because he was in such circumstances that it would be more advantageous for his daughter to be the concubine of a well-to-do neighbour than to marry a man in her own social position.
maidservant ] better, bondwoman (RVm.), or female slave: ‘maid-servant’ has associations which are not at all those of ancient Hebrew society. Here the word ( ’mh) denotes in particular a female slave bought not only to do household work, but also to be her master’s concubine. Cf. the same word in Gen 21:10 ff. (of Hagar), Jdg 9:18 (of Gideon’s concubine; see Exo 8:31), Exo 19:19.
as the male slaves do ] v. 2.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
7 11. Hebrew female slaves. The law for female slaves is different. A female slave does not receive her freedom at the end of six years ( v. 7); still, she cannot be sold to a non-Israelite; and if her master, before actually taking her as his concubine, finds he does not like her she must be redeemed ( v. 8). If her master has bought her for his son she must have the usual rights of a daughter ( v. 9). If her master take another concubine, she is in no respect to be defrauded of her food, dress, and conjugal rights ( v. 10): if these be withheld, her freedom must be given her unconditionally ( v. 11). The reason for the different treatment of female slaves is to be found in the fact that a female slave was as a rule ( v. 8) her master’s concubine; she stood consequently to her master in a relation which could not suitably be terminated at the end of six years. Concubinage was common among the ancient Hebrews (among the patriarchs, Gen 16:3; Gen 22:24; Gen 30:3; Gen 30:9; Gen 36:12; in the time of the Judges, Jdg 8:31; Jdg 9:18; Jdg 19:1 ff.; and among the early kings, 2Sa 3:7; 2Sa 5:13; 2Sa 15:16; 2Sa 21:11; 1Ki 11:3), as it was also among the Babylonians in the age of ammurabi (Code, 144 7 1 [186] ), and as it is still in Mohammedan countries (see e.g. Lane, Modern Egyptians, i. 122, 227, 232 f.).
[186] Cf. the interesting case attested by two contemporary contract-tablets (Pinches, OT. in the Light of Ass. and Bab. records and legends, p. 174 f.; Cook, Moses and amm. p. 113 f.): a man marries his wife’s sister, to become her waiting-maid.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
A man might, in accordance with existing custom, sell his daughter to another man with a view to her becoming an inferior wife, or concubine. In this case, she was not to go out, like the bondman; that is, she was not to be dismissed at the end of the sixth year. But women who were bound in any other way, would appear to have been under the same conditions as bondmen. See Deu 15:17.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Exo 21:7-11
If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant.
Degraded condition of girls in Africa
The condition of girls in Africa is thus described by a missionary: A father looks upon his girl as being of the value only of so many goats, and he is ready to sell her as soon as any man offers him the required payment. Thus, while she is quite young–perhaps only four or five–her life and liberty may have been sold away by her own father, and sooner or later she must become the wife, the slave, the drudge of her owner. While at Mayumba, near the mouth of the Congo river, I one afternoon heard a child screaming frantically behind the house where I was staying, and going out I found a little Bavilla girl, not more than four years old, who had just been brought down the lagoon from her home away in the Mamba hills, where she had been bought by a Mayumba man. The crew of the canoe in which she had been brought down–six big, fierce-looking men–were standing around the little prisoner, pointing their guns and spears at her just for the sport of seeing her shake and scream with fright; and a band of women were dancing with wild delight at the heartless game. It was possible to save the poor child from the cruel treatment just then, but that was only the beginning of a lifetime of suffering for her in the midst of a strange people, with no friend at hand to help or protect her.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 7. If a man sell his daughter] This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress – when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
A man, i.e. a Hebrew, as appears by the opposition of one of a strange nation, Exo 21:8.
For a man to
sell his daughter to be a maid-servant was allowed in case of extreme necessity, because of the hardness of their hearts.
She shall not go out as the men-servants do, but upon better terms, as being one of the weaker and more helpless sex.
Quest. How doth this agree with Deu 15:17,
Also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise?
Answ. 1. Distinguish persons. She, Deu 15:17 was sold by herself, and that to mere servitude; this here was sold by her father, not only for service, but in order to her marriage, as the following verses sufficiently imply.
2. Distinguish things. The likeness between men-servants and maid-servants was only in the rites used, in case she consented to perpetual servitude. The difference here is, in case they both were made free, in which case she had some privileges, which here follow.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7-11. if a man sell hisdaughterHebrew girls might be redeemed for a reasonable sum.But in the event of her parents or friends being unable to pay theredemption money, her owner was not at liberty to sell her elsewhere.Should she have been betrothed to him or his son, and either changetheir minds, a maintenance must be provided for her suitable to hercondition as his intended wife, or her freedom instantly granted.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant,…. That is, if an Israelite, as the Targum of Jonathan, sells his little daughter, as the same Targum, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra, one that is under age, that is not arrived to the age of twelve years and a day, and this through poverty; he not being able to support himself and his family, puts his daughter out to service, or rather sells her to be a servant:
she shall not go out as the menservants do; that are sold, before described; or rather, according to the Targum,
“as the Canaanitish servants go out, who are made free, because of a tooth, or an eye, (the loss of them,
Ex 21:26) but in the years of release, and with the signs (of puberty), and in the jubilee, and at the death of their masters, with redemption of silver,”
so Jarchi.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The daughter of an Israelite, who had been sold by her father as a maid-servant ( ), i.e., as the sequel shows, as a housekeeper and concubine, stood in a different relation to her master’s house. She was not to go out like the men-servants, i.e., not to be sent away as free at the end of six years of service; but the three following regulations, which are introduced by (Exo 21:8), (Exo 21:9), and (Exo 21:11), were to be observed with regard to her. In the first place (Exo 21:8), “ if she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed. ” The before is one of the fifteen cases in which has been marked in the Masoretic text as standing for ; and it cannot possibly signify not in the passage before us. For if it were to be taken as a negative, “that he do not appoint her,” sc., as a concubine for himself, the pronoun would certainly not be omitted. (for , see Ges. 53, Note 6), to let her be redeemed, i.e., to allow another Israelite to buy her as a concubine; for there can hardly have been any thought of redemption on the part of the father, as it would no doubt be poverty alone that caused him to sell his daughter (Lev 25:39). But “ to sell her unto a strange nation (i.e., to any one but a Hebrew), he shall have no power, if he acts unfaithfully towards her, ” i.e., if he do not grant her the promised marriage. In the second place (Exo 21:9, Exo 21:10), “ if he appoint her as his son’s wife, he shall act towards her according to the rights of daughters, ” i.e., treat her as a daughter; “and if he take him (the son) another (wife), – whether because the son was no longer satisfied, or because the father gave the son another wife in addition to her – “ her food ( flesh as the chief article of food, instead of , bread, because the lawgiver had persons of property in his mind, who were in a position to keep concubines), her raiment, and her duty of marriage he shall not diminish, ” i.e., the claims which she had as a daughter for support, and as his son’s wife for conjugal rights, were not to be neglected; he was not to allow his son, therefore, to put her away or treat her badly. With this explanation the difficulties connected with every other are avoided. For instance, if we refer the words of Exo 21:9 to the son, and understand them as meaning, “if the son should take another wife,” we introduce a change of subject without anything to indicate it. If, on the other hand, we regard them as meaning, “if the father (the purchaser) should take to himself another wife,” this ought to have come before Exo 21:9. In the third place (Exo 21:11), “ if he do not (do not grant) these three unto her, she shall go out for nothing, without money.” “These three” are food, clothing, and conjugal rights, which are mentioned just before; not “ si eam non desponderit sibi nec filio, nec redimi sit passus ” ( Rabbins and others), nor “if he did not give her to his son as a concubine, but diminished her,” as Knobel explains it.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Verses 7-11:
It was not uncommon for daughters to be sold as slaves. In some cases they were sold as wives or concubines. In this case, the female slave was not set free at the end of the sixth year, as was the male slave. If for some reason she did not “please” her master, he must “let her be redeemed,” or offer a near kinsman the right to redeem her. He must not allow her to be sold to a foreigner.
If the owner of the female slave took another wife, he must not, in any way, diminish any of the rights of the first in preference to the second. If he did, he must allow the first to go free.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
From this passage, as well as other similar ones, it plainly appears how many vices were of necessity tolerated in this people. It was altogether an act of barbarism that fathers should sell their children for the relief of their poverty, still it could not be corrected as might have been hoped. Again, the sanctity of the marriage-vow should have been greater than that it should be allowable for a master to repudiate his bond-maid, after he had betrothed her to himself as his wife; or, when he had betrothed her to his son, to make void that covenant, which is inviolable: for that principle ought ever to hold good — “Those whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” ( Mat 19:6; Mar 10:9.) Yet liberty was accorded to the ancient people in all these particulars; only provision is here made that the poor girls should not suffer infamy and injury from their repudiation. But, although God is gracious in remitting the punishment, still He shows that chastity is pleasing to Him, as far as the people’s hardness of heart permitted. First of all, He does not allow a master to seduce his purchased maid-servant, but if he wishes to enjoy her embraces, a marriage must take place; for although He does not set this out in express terms, still we may infer from what He condemns, that the contrary is what He approves. From whence, too, their notion is refuted who suppose that fornication was lawful under the Law. But the words must be more closely examined on account of their ambiguity. First, the sex is treated with consideration, that the condition of a female may be somewhat more favorable than that of a male; since, otherwise, their weakness would render young women subject to injury and shame. An explanation then follows, respecting which, however, interpreters differ; for some read the particle לא, (74) lo, which is properly negative, for לו, lo; and hence arise two opposite meanings — If he hath, or hath not, betrothed her to himself. If it be preferred to take it affirmatively, the meaning of the precept will be: If a master shall repudiate his bond-maid, whom he has loved and destined to be his wife, he must give her her liberty; for although literally it is, “he shall cause her to be redeemed,” yet; the context shows that the obligation of setting her free is laid upon him; nor is this contradicted by the fact that he is only deprived of the power of selling her to a strange people; since I do not understand this as applying to foreigners only, but to others of his own nation, since sometimes those of another tribe or family are called strangers. For, even though there were no marriage-compact, it was not otherwise lawful to sell slaves of the holy and elect people to foreigners. Besides, amongst the Israelites, slavery was only temporary. But, to pass by everything else, let it suffice to observe the absurdity that a master should hold his wife as a slave to be sold at pleasure, if their opinion is received who suppose that the words refer to repudiation after betrothal. (75) I myself rather approve of the other opinion, that, although the master shall not have aspired to matrimony with her, if her appearance displeases him so that he would be unwilling to have her as his wife, at least he must provide for her redemption; because her chastity would be in jeopardy if she remained with him unmarried; unless perhaps Moses may signify that, after she had been seduced, her master did not honor her with marriage. But the other view which I have just expressed is more simple; and a caution is given lest masters should seduce their maid-servants at their pleasure. Thus the word despise (76) does not refer to repudiation, but is opposed to beauty, or conjugal love.
The next case is, that if he should betroth her to his son, (he must give her a dowry, (77)) in which, also, her modesty and honor is consulted, lest she should be oppressed by the right of ownership, and become a harlot. In the third place, it is provided that, if she should be repudiated, her condition should not be disadvantageous. If, therefore, he would make her his daughter-in-law, and betroth her to his son, he is commanded to deal liberally with her; for “after the manner of daughters” is equivalent to giving her a dowry, or, at any rate, to treating her as if she were free. Finally, he adds that, if he should choose another wife for his son, he should not reject the former one, nor defraud her of her food and raiment, or of some third thing, concerning which translators are not well agreed. Some render it time, but I do not see what is the meaning of diminishing her time; others, duty of marriage, but this is too free a translation; others, more correctly, affliction, since the girl would be humiliated by her repudiation; still, to diminish affliction, is too harsh an expression for to compensate an injury. Let my readers, then, consider whether the word, ענתה, gnonathah, is not used for compact or agreement; for thus the context will run very well: If his son have married another wife, that the girl who has suffered ignominious rejection should obtain her rights as to food, and raiment, and her appointed dowry; otherwise, God commands that she should be set free gratuitously, in order that her liberty may compensate for the wrong she has received.
(74) The Hebrew text has לא, not, but with a mark of doubt as to the genuineness of the reading, and the Masoretic note directs the substitution of לו, to him C. follows S. M. in adhering to the text, whilst our A. V. and the LXX. reject not, in accordance with the Masora. — W
(75) This sentence is omitted in Ft., and the following substituted: “Ce mot doncques ou il est dit, Qu ’ il ne la pourra vendre a des estrangers, est entrelasse, pour monstrer, qu’il n’y eust eu nulle raison qu’il vendist celle qu’il a abusee de vaine esperance;“ this sentence, then, in which it is said that he may not sell her to strangers, is inserted to show that there was no reason why he should sell her whom he has abused with vain hopes.
(76) A. V. , “If she please not.” Margin, “ Heb. , Be evil in the eyes of, etc.”
(77) Added from Fr. , in which there is much verbal difference here.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Exo. 21:7. Not as the men-servants] From Deu. 15:17, Kalisch infers that in this place foreign female servants are intended, whereas in that place Hebrew domestics are meant, by which supposition the seeming contradiction is removed.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 21:7-11
THE RIGHTS OF THE FEMALE SLAVE
This passage is somewhat obscure, and in its interpretation we find comparatively little help from the Commentators. It treats of that state of concubinage which was assumed and provided for by the law of Moses. The natural desire of offspring was, in the Jew, consecrated into a religious hope, which tended to redeem concubinage from the debasement into which the grosser motives for its adoption might have brought it.
I. The Israelitish daughter as servant and concubine. On account of poverty the Israelite sold his daughter, not merely as a slave, but with the hope that ultimately she would become the wife of her master, or of his son. In this respect she is not to be treated as a male slave. She is not to be sent out in the seventh year, but remain as one of the members of the family. Practically she has become a concubine, and if her rights are respected, it is far better for her to remain in the house of her master, than to go out free as did the manservant in the seventh year. She shall not go out as the menservants do. The master must not follow mere caprice. Lust must be checked. She has rights which must be respected.
II. Her rights when betrothed unto the master. He has no power to deal with her as he lists, even though she be evil in his eyes. If she please not her master, then shall he let her be redeemed. The father may redeem her by paying back either the whole or part of the purchase money. The master has no power to sell her unto a strange nation. The Greek, too, did not sell a Greek slave to go beyond the boundary of the land (Knobel). Her lot would be more severe in a strange land than in her own country. To sell her into a strange land would be to deal unjustly by her. This would be to increase the injustice, if. after having dealt deceitfully with her, he were to sell her unto a strange nation.
III. Her rights when betrothed unto the son. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. As his sons concubine, she is to be regarded by him as a daughter. The servile merged in the connubial relation, and her children would be free.
IV. Her rights if displaced by another. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. If the master take another wife for the son, then the concubines domestic rights must remain inviolate. She must have her proper food, her fitting raiment, and her recognised seat and resting-place in the house as a lawful concubine.
V. The concubines remedy if her rights are not regarded. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. She becomes a free woman, and the master can get no compensation. Learn that the weakest have rights which must be regardedand that masters must conduct themselves so as to promote the welfare of the community and the consolidation of the nation.W. Burrows, B.A.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Exo. 21:7-11. It is a great hardness of heart to sell children for the advantage of men to unnatural fathers.
Gods special judgments take care for daughters as the weaker sex, before men. God will not have any to make merchandise of the children of the Church.
Mans deceitfulness occasions Gods faithfulness to provide for His oppressed children.
Gods judgments determine all relations justly to be used, servants as servants, children as children.
Gods justice appears in legal freedom, and His goodness to the Gospel freedom under Christ our head.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY
REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Slave-Service! Exo. 21:7. Swinnock says that civil subjection to man came in by sinful defection from God. The word servant is thought to be derived from a servando, because those who were taken in battle and might have been slain were saved (2Ki. 5:2). As servitude came in with a curse (Gen. 9:25), so sovereignty is promised as a blessing (Gen. 27:9). It was usual for the debtor to become servant to the creditor amongst the Romans, by the law of the Twelve Tables. The French were wont also to sell themselves to noblemen for debt; and the Jews were not ignorant of this practice (2Ki. 4:1). Titus Sempronius would sell his aged and weak servants as cattle. Cato Pollio commanded one of his servants to be thrown into his fishponds for breaking a glass which he valued highly, though he had an abundant stock of them. When Augustus Csar heard of it, he entered the place where the glasses were, and broke them all.
Why didst thou this? Man! was he not thy brother?
Bone of thy bone, and flesh and blood of thine?
But ah, this truth, by Heaven and reason taught,
Was neverfully credited on earth.
Pollok.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(7) If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant.The right of selling their children into slavery was regarded in ancient times as inherent in the patria potestas, and was practised largely by many nations (Herod. v. 6; Heyne, Opusc., vol. iv., p. 125). Among the Hebrews such sales were, comparatively speaking, rare; but still they occasionally took place, in consequence of extreme poverty (Neh. 5:5). Women sold in this way might claim their freedom at the end of six years if they chose (Deu. 15:17); but if purchased to be wives, they received a further protection. If the intention were carried out, they were to be entitled to the status of wives during their whole lifetime, even though their husbands contracted further marriages (Exo. 21:10). If, instead of becoming the wife of her purchaser, a woman was made over by him to his son, she was to enjoy all the rights of a daughter (Exo. 21:9). If the purchaser declined to act in either of these two ways, he was compelled to take one of two other courses. Either he must get another Hebrew to discharge his obligation of marriage (Exo. 21:8), or he must return the maid intact to her father, without making any demand for the restitution of the purchase-money (Exo. 21:11). These provisions afforded a considerable protection to the slave-concubine, who might otherwise have been liable to grievous wrong and oppression.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. Sell his daughter This might occur because of extreme poverty and want . Neh 5:5. The verses following show that this kind of a sale was contemplated as essentially a betrothal; but they also serve to exhibit the inferior position in which women were held as compared with men . They might be sold by their parents for maidservants, and so take the place of concubines in the family of the purchaser . But this statute was attended by the following provisions: (1 . ) A maidservant, thus acquired, was not to obtain her freedom in the seventh year, like the men-servants of Exo 21:2. (2 . ) She could not be sold into a strange nation . (3 . ) She might be redeemed, either by her father, were he able, or by another Hebrew who desired her for a concubine . (4 . ) Her master might betroth her to his son, and in that case she was to be treated by him as a daughter. (5.) Her rights as a concubine were not to be changed by his taking another woman into the same relation. (6.) If her rights were withheld she was entitled to freedom. On the whole these laws, though far below the standard of Christian ethics, were mild and tolerant for the time.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Provision in Respect of A Woman Sold To Be A Slave Wife.
The remaining provisions protected a woman sold to be a slave wife permanently and were necessary for her. It meant that she could not be discarded when older. It will be noted that this system allowed a form of divorce. It was not really God’s purpose, but controlled a system that already existed because of the hardness of their hearts.
We may analyse this as follows:
a A woman bought with promises of marriage could not be treated in the same way as other bondservants (Exo 21:7).
b If she does not please her master who has espoused her to him, then he must let her be redeemed (Exo 21:8).
c He must not sell her to a other than her own family (to a strange people) (Exo 21:8).
c If he espouse her to his son he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters (Exo 21:9).
b If he takes for himself another for wife, her food, her clothing and duty of marriage he shall not diminish (Exo 21:10).
a And if he do not these three to her then shall she go out for nothing without money (Exo 21:11).
In ‘a’ reference is made to a woman bought with promises of marriage, in the parallel it is stressed that if not rightly treated she is to go out free, without cost. In ‘b’ we have the situation where the man, although having betrothed her to himself, decides that he will seek another wife. In that case she must be returned to her own family at an agreed price. A betrothed woman was seen in most respects as already married to her betrothed, thus this is tantamount to a divorce. In the parallel, where the man as an alternative marries another wife he may not keep the slave wife and diminish her portions. She must be treated in all respects as a true wife. In ‘c’ He must not sell her to others (the purchase was so that he could marry her and he is restricted to that). In the parallel he may marry her to his son.
Exo 21:7-11
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a female bondservant she shall not go out as the male bondservants do. If she please not her master who has espoused her to him, then shall he let her be redeemed. He shall have no power to sell her to a strange people seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he espouse her to his son he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he takes for himself another for wife, her food, her clothing and duty of marriage he shall not diminish. And if he do not these three to her then shall she go out for nothing without money.”
The contrast with ‘the male bondservants’ (Exo 21:7), which presumably looks back to the previous verses, suggests that we are here dealing with a Hebrew woman sold by her father for the purpose of marriage. The corresponding situation in Nuzi was that a Hapiru may sell his daughter either conditionally or unconditionally. If sold unconditionally the sale was outright. (With Israel the regulations in respect of bondmen and as in Deu 15:12-17 would then apply). If sold conditionally it was so that the girl should be adopted into the family of the purchaser, with a marriage situation in view. Thus at some stage they would have a responsibility for arranging her marriage. This is the example in view here.
If the master espouses the girl to himself and then finds that she is not pleasing he must allow her to be redeemed, probably to be bought back by her father at a mutually agreed price which was reasonable taking into account the poverty which had caused the original sale. He must be willing to suffer loss because he has dealt with the girl deceitfully. He may not sell her on to a strange people (that is, someone not of the family circle). Alternately it may mean that she could be sold to another Israelite, but not to a foreigner, thus keeping her within the covenant. But this seems less likely and would not really be redemption.
The alternative was that he may espouse her to his son. In this case she must be treated as a proper daughter.
If he marries her and then takes another wife he must treat her properly. He must not reduce her food and clothing, nor may he refuse her her conjugal rights.
If he does none of these things he must let her go free at no cost. She is to be released immediately. This proviso supports the view that the possible redemption is by the impoverished father. If no agreement can be reached the master gets nothing, a good incentive to reaching a reasonable agreement given all the circumstances.
The importance of this law for us today is that it lays down a principle, the principle of fair treatment for those for whom we are responsible as employers or hirers. It emphasises that we are to treat them better than others do, and must not manipulate them.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Exo 21:7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant It appears very plainly from the account given in Leviticus, that the law laid down in the former verses held good with regard to female as well as to male-servants; and consequently, what follows must be considered as an exempt or particular case: in which view, it can no otherwise be understood, than as referring to a parent’s selling his daughter through poverty. Daughters, thus sold by their parents, were to be treated in a different manner from those females who were sold on the other accounts mentioned in note on Exo 21:2.; for the sacred writer tells us, that if a man thus sold his daughter, she should not go out as the men-servants do; that is, by gaining her liberty after a servitude of six years: other and easier terms are assigned for her.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Here again, beside the moral lesson taught of doing what is just and right, here is a spiritual intimation of the betrothing of the heart to the Lord intended from it. The humblest of the Lord’s freemen cannot be sold for bondage to a strange nation. Joh 8:36 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Ver. 7. She shall not go out. ] But upon better terms. He that was to come “in the form of a servant,” Php 2:7 see what care he takes of poor servants’ welfare. Lawyers seldom speak but for great men, or when they may have great gifts. Christ is not of that humour.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
a man. Hebrew. ‘ish. See App-14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
sell: Neh 5:5
go out: Exo 21:2, Exo 21:3
Reciprocal: Gen 31:15 – sold us Deu 21:14 – thou shalt Isa 50:1 – or which
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 21:7. If a man sell his daughter A Hebrew, as appears by the opposition of one of a strange nation, Exo 21:8. To be a maid-servant Which was allowed in cases of extreme necessity; she shall not go out as the men-servants do Gaining her liberty after a servitude of six years, but upon better terms, as being one of the weaker and more helpless sex.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
21:7 And if a man {f} sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
(f) Forced either by poverty, or else with the intent that the master should marry her.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Betrothal of a female 21:7-11
Females did not enjoy as much freedom as males in the ancient Near East or in Israel. They were subject to the fathers or husbands in authority over them as well as to God (cf. Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18). Exo 21:7-11 describe a girl whom her father sells as a servant (Heb. ’amah, Exo 21:7) for marriage, not for slavery. [Note: Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 430.] In such a case the girl would become the servant of the father of her husband-to-be who would than give her to his son as his wife. She would remain in her prospective father-in-law’s household unless someone redeemed her before the consummation of her marriage. If for some reason her prospective father-in-law became displeased with her, he was to allow someone to redeem her (set her free by the payment of a price). Her redeemer could be herself or someone else (cf. Deu 24:1). Her master was not to sell her to some other person, a "foreign" person in that sense (Exo 21:8). Such treatment was unfair to her because it violated her legitimate human rights. "Conjugal rights" (Exo 21:10) here refers to her living quarters and other support provisions, not sexual intercourse. This passage is not discussing marriage as such (after physical consummation) as the NIV and AV imply.