Chapter VI

_CIVIL AND MORAL LAWS._
EXOD. XXI.–XXIII. DEUT. XIX.–XXIV.

HITHERTO we have been concerned with those portions of the Mosaic Law, which instructed the Israelite in his duty towards God, and the mode in which He was to be worshipped. We will now turn to the chief of those which instructed him in his duty as (i) _a member of a family_, and (ii) _of a nation_.

(i) The FAMILY RELATIONS include (1) _The mutual duties of Parents and Children_, (2) _of Husband and Wife_, (3) _of Master and Servant_.

(1) _The duties of Parents and Children._ Reverence for parents is enjoined in the Decalogue as the first duty next after those appertaining to God Himself. _Honour thy father and mother_ is the first and the only commandment to which a promise of long life and continuance in the Promised Land is definitely attached (Ex. xx. 12; Eph. vi. 2), and to smite or revile father or mother is made a capital offence (Ex. xxi. 15, 17; Lev. xix. 3; xx. 9). In the Patriarchal times, as we have already seen[106], the authority of the father over his children was very great. His blessing conferred special benefits, his curse special injury (Gen. ix. 25, 27; xxvii. 27–40; xlviii. 15, 20; xlix.). His authority was of great moment, not only in the marriage of sons (Gen. xxiv. 3), but of daughters, though in the latter case the consent of the brothers, or at least of the elder brother, was deemed important (Gen. xxiv. 50, 51; xxxiv. 11). But the Mosaic Law did not invest the father with the same boundless power as the Greek or Roman Law[107]. He could not inflict death irresponsibly. The incorrigible son, whom he could not restrain from flagrant crimes, he might bring before the elders of the city, who, having obtained the concurrence of _both_ parents, might sentence him to be stoned to death. But in the execution of the judgment the whole congregation were required to take part, in order to promote a more general abhorrence of the sin (Deut. xxi. 18–21). The father could not disinherit his sons; to the firstborn he must give two portions, and equal shares to the rest; but in case of extreme indigence he might sell his children, especially his daughters, into servitude, or surrender them to creditors as a pledge (Ex. xxi. 7).

(2) _The Relations of Husband and Wife._ The institution of marriage was jealously guarded by the Mosaic Law. Adultery ranked next to murder, and the punishment for both parties was death by stoning (Lev. xviii. 20; xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22). In deference to the universal custom of Oriental nations, and the example of the Patriarchs, polygamy was _allowed_, though by no means _encouraged_, and though frequently practised by the kings of Israel, was rare in private life (1 Sam. i. 2). The right of divorce was conceded (Deut. xxiv. 1–4) on account of _the hardness of the hearts_ of the people (Matt. xix. 8), but a woman once divorced and marrying again might not return to her first husband, either on the death of, or when put away by, the second. The Mosaic Law sanctioned a custom of the Patriarchal age (Gen. xxxviii. 8), which made it necessary that if a man died childless, his wife should be taken in marriage by his surviving brother, and it was further ordained that the firstborn son by such a marriage should succeed in the name of his brother, that it be not put out in Israel (Deut. xxv. 5, &c.). The rigour, however, of the old custom was relaxed. If the brother had children of his own alive, he was exempt; and if he declared in open court his unwillingness to enter into the marriage, the duty devolved on the next relation of the deceased husband. (See Ruth iv. 5–11.)

(3) _The Relation of Master and Servant._ Slavery existed amongst the Israelites as amongst all other Eastern nations. Slaves could be acquired in four ways. (1) They might be taken in war (Num. xxxi. 11, 35; Deut. xx. 14); (2) they might be purchased of parents or former owners or merchants in time of peace (Gen. xvii. 23; Lev. xxv. 44, 45); (3) they might have sold themselves in satisfaction for a debt (Lev. xxv. 39–43; 2 Kings iv. 1); (4) they might be the children of slaves born in their master’s house. But while slavery was thus recognised as an institution, it was the aim of the Mosaic Law to mitigate its evils as much as possible. Thus, not only does it open with a number of precepts relating to slaves (Ex. xxi. 2–6), but it ever pronounced them to be equal before God as regarded their spiritual relation, and freely admitted them to all religious privileges, circumcision (Gen. xvii. 10–14; Ex. xii. 44), the rest of the Sabbath (Ex. xx. 10), the festivals (Ex. xii. 44), and gave them an interest in all the sacrifices offered by the family (Deut. xvi. 11, 14).

In regard, again, to civil rights, the Hebrew slave was never looked upon as a mere _thing_ or _chattel_. A master could not chastise a slave to death without being punished (Ex. xxi. 20, 21), and if he inflicted bodily mutilation, the slave, whether male or female, might claim to be free (Ex. xxi. 26, 27). In the seventh year of his service the Hebrew slave might take up his freedom, leaving, however, his wife given him by his master during service and her children (Ex. xxi. 3, 4); if he declined to avail himself of this privilege, his master might take him before the elders, bore his ear with an awl to the door, and then he was his servant for ever, _i.e._ till the year of Jubilee (Ex. xxi. 5, 6; Deut. xv. 16, 17). Moreover, as the Israelites when delivered from Egyptian bondage had not gone forth empty, so the Hebrew bondslave at his release (which took effect in the Jubilee year, even though he had not served his full time) was to be furnished liberally out of the flock, the floor, and the winepress (Deut. xv. 13, 14). Besides bondslaves we also find _hired servants_ among the Hebrews. They were to be treated kindly, and their wages duly paid (Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15). Strangers also within the gates, whether runaway slaves or exiles from their own land, who would naturally be in extreme want, were to be treated with great kindness, for the Israelite himself was a _stranger in the land of Egypt_ (Ex. xxii. 21; xxiii. 9). Together with the poor generally, whether Hebrews or heathens, they were to have the free enjoyment of the gleaning of the field and the garden (Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 22; Deut. xxiv. 19–21), of the spontaneous produce of the Sabbatical year (Lev. xxv. 5, 6), of the sacrificial and tithe-feasts (Deut. xiv. 28, 29), and their share at joyous family festivals, such as marriages, circumcision, the weaning of children.

(ii) The Laws affecting the Israelite in his civil capacity may be arranged in three groups, according as they regarded the sanctity of (1) _Life_, (2) _Character_, and (3) _Property_.

(1) _Life._ The Laws protecting the life and person include those against (a) _premeditated murder_, and (b) _unintentional manslaughter_.

(a) _Premeditated murder._ The wilful shedder of man’s blood met with no compassion from the Mosaic Code. The original law at Sinai (Ex. xxi. 12–14) and the subsequent repetition of it (Deut. xix. 11–13) made death the inevitable penalty of murder, even as it had been in the days of Noah (Gen. ix. 6). The murderer was regarded as accursed; for him the horns of the altar were to be no refuge; he was to be dragged from them by force to suffer his doom, nor could rank or wealth exempt him from it, for it was expressly provided that on no pretext whatever should any ransom be taken (Num. xxxv. 31, 32). Nor was his person only regarded as accursed, but so long as he remained undiscovered, even the land was looked upon as polluted. If no efforts could detect the murderer, the elders of the nearest town were to take a heifer, and bring it down to a _rough valley, neither eared nor sown_, and there strike off its head. They were then to wash their hands over it, and in the presence of the Levites pronounce the following words; _Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto Thy people, whom Thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood to Thy people of Israel’s charge_. Thus atonement was to be made (Deut. xxi. 1–9).

(b) _Unintentional homicide._ Prior to the Mosaic age, the duty of avenging blood devolved upon the next of kin, who was called the Goel or _Avenger_, and together with his office inherited the property of the deceased. Sometimes a whole family took upon them this duty (2 Sam. xiv. 7). Amongst the other nations, as the Arab tribes of the present day, “any bloodshed whatever, whether wilful or accidental, laid the homicide open to the _duteous_ revenge of the relatives and family of the slain person, who again in their turn were then similarly watched and hunted by the opposite party, until a family war of extermination had legally settled itself from generation to generation, without the least prospect of a peaceful termination.” It was the aim of the Mosaic Law, without abolishing this long established custom, to mitigate its evils as far as possible. Accordingly it was directed that, on the arrival of the people in the Promised Land, six _Cities of Refuge_ should be set apart, to which the homicide might fly, if not overtaken by the _Avenger_. Of these, three were to be on either side of the Jordan, almost equally remote from each other, and the roads leading to them were to be kept in a state of perfect repair (Ex. xxi. 13; Num. xxxv. 11; Deut. xix. 3). They were to be chosen out of the priestly and Levitical cities, as likely to be inhabited by the most intelligent portion of the community. On reaching one of them, the case of the homicide was to be examined by the elders; if they pronounced him guilty he was to be delivered up to the Avenger; if innocent, an abode was to be provided him in the city, where he was to remain till the death of the high-priest, but if found at any time by the Avenger beyond the limit of protection, 2000 cubits, he was liable to be put to death. On the demise of the high-priest he might return to the city of his possession (Num. xxxv. 25, 28)[108].

(2) The sacredness of a _man’s character_ was enforced by the commandment in the Decalogue forbidding _false witness_, and by laws prohibiting calumny, hatred, partiality in judgment for rich or poor (Ex. xxiii. 1–3; Lev. xix. 16–18). No exact penalty was enforced, but it was enjoined that in case of false witness the parties should be brought before the priests and judges, and if after diligent inquisition the charge was established, then should be done unto the slanderer as he had thought to have done unto his brother, that so the evil might be put away (Deut. xix. 19–21).

(3) _Property_ was carefully guarded in the Mosaic Law, which forbade not only stealing, the act, but coveting, the intention.

(a) _Direct theft_ was punished by restitution. If the stolen goods were found in the hands of the thief, he was to restore twofold; if before his detection he had applied them to his own use, he was to restore five oxen for an ox, four sheep for a sheep (Comp. 2 Sam. xii. 6); but a still heavier fine was exacted if he had not only sold, but killed and injured. If unable to pay the fine, he was to be sold into slavery to a Hebrew master, and serve him till he could pay (Ex. xxii. 1–4). A night-thief might be resisted even to death (Ex. xxii. 2). Man-stealing or kidnapping was a capital offence (Ex. xxi. 16). The crime of removing a neighbour’s landmark was severely reprobated (Deut. xix. 14; xxvii. 17).

(b) _Indirect injury through carelessness or other causes._ This included injury done to property entrusted to another for safe keeping. If it was stolen and the thief detected, he was to repay double; if he could not be found, the trustee, on being declared guilty of negligence by the judges, was to restore twofold. Compensation was also exacted, where property was injured through a pit being left open, through cattle straying amongst other cattle or trespassing on another’s land, or through fire spreading to standing corn (Ex. xxi. 33–36; xxii. 5, 6). Straying or suffering beasts, even if the property of an enemy, were to be brought back or relieved (Ex. xxiii. 4, 5).

_Land._ All land was to be regarded as belonging to God, and
the holders as His tenants. At the conquest of Palestine each
tribe was to have its allotment, and each family its portion,
and these were to remain for ever inalienable (Num. xxvii. 1–11;
xxxvi.; comp. 1 Kings xxi. 3; 2 Kings ix. 25, 26). All sold land,
therefore, was to return to its original owners at the Jubilee,
but might be redeemed by the owner or his representative at any
period before then (Lev. xxv. 13–16, 23–28).

_Laws of debt._ An Israelite who had fallen into debt from
any cause, might (i) sell himself as a slave to one of his
own nation, with the right of resuming his freedom after six
years, and at the Jubilee recovering his inheritance, (ii) claim
a timely loan (Deut. xv. 1–11), but no usury might be taken
from an Israelite (Ex. xxii. 25–27; Deut. xxiii. 19, 20). Thus
pledges would become frequent, but they might not be cruelly or
ruinously exacted. The handmill, a necessity in every family,
might not be pledged (Deut. xxiv. 6); the cloak must be restored
before nightfall when it became essential (Ex. xxii. 26, 27;
Deut. xxiv. 12, 13); the lender was not to go into the house of
his debtor to claim his pledge, or seize any article he chose;
he was to stand abroad, and the pledge was to be brought out to
him (Deut. xxiv. 10, 11).