2. Presentation (20:1-23:33)
The presentation of the covenant has four parts: (1) the prologue (20:1-2); (2) a summary of the requirements for the people (20:3-17); (3) expanded requirements for the people (20:22-23:19); (4) God’s commitment (23:20-33). Parts 2 and 3 encompass what we know as “the law.” Here we see the law in its correct context. Obedience to it is a response to God’s grace shown through his past deliverance and his future promises.
The first two verses of ch. 20 form a prologue. The reason for this covenant’s being offered is stated succinctly. God, who had become their God by virtue of what he had done for them in Egypt, offers it. Covenant-keeping is not a means of entering a relationship with God. Rather, it is the way an already existing relationship—one created solely by God’s gracious intervention in their history—is lived out.
Ex 20:3-17 summarizes in ten absolute commands what God expects of his people. Nothing of this sort appears in the law codes of other ancient Near Eastern peoples. This is not surprising since those societies were all polytheistic, and polytheism is of necessity relativistic. But where only one God exists, his will is absolute. It may be asked why this summary statement is couched in such largely negative terms. Surely it is because norms that are stated positively leave us in doubt about limits. While “You shall not commit adultery” does not tell me how to cherish my spouse, it leaves no doubt whatsoever about what I cannot do and still cherish my spouse. The importance of these commands can hardly be overstated. If indeed their Author is the Author of all existence, as the Bible maintains, then this cursory expression of his expectations for his covenant people is also an expression of the norms of human life.
The first commandment calls for exclusive worship of God. Interestingly, this statement does not require God’s people to deny the existence of other deities, but rather to act as if they did not exist. At the outset, God is less concerned about what we think than what we do. Ultimately, the two must coincide (Dt 4:35, 39-40), but at the outset obedience comes first (Jn 7:17). So long as polytheism exists, ethical relativism and magical manipulation of divine power cannot be escaped.
The second commandment speaks to God’s transcendance. As with monotheism, this doctrine is fundamental to any concept of ethical absolutes and to religion based on trust and commitment rather than manipulation. God is not a part of this world and cannot be represented by, or manipulated by, anything in it. To attempt to do so is inevitably to localize him and, ultimately, to divide him. The introduction of idolatry has long-term consequences, which our children and grandchildren will feel. This should not be surprising, since this is a world of cause and effect (see below on 34:6-7).
The third commandment speaks of making God appear insignificant through casual use (“misuse,” lit. “use in an empty way” 20:7) of God’s name. The most immediate reference here is to invoking God’s name while swearing to do something that the swearer knows is either impossible or unlikely. By using God’s name in that way we make the Lord of the universe appear faithless, or, worse, worthless. See also Jas 5:12.
The fourth command (20:8-11) is one of the two commands stated positively. Also, it is the only one of the laws relating to worship and ceremony that makes its way into the Ten Commandments. The rationale given for the Sabbath is rest. The day is to be kept holy, that is, different from all other days in which ordinary work is undertaken. But “holy” also means given over to the Lord and thus reflecting his nature. Dt 5:15 adds a further rationale: God has delivered his people from slave labor; the Sabbath is a day to rejoice in that freedom from work.
The command regarding parents is the second positive command. No nation that forgets its debt to those who have gone before can endure. Self-centered arrogance that cuts its ties to previous benefactors will break the threads of continuity and development upon which any civilization depends. But more specifically, no nation can endure in which the family structure is not consciously upheld. To refuse to honor one’s parents, however fallible they may be or have been, destroys the sense of identity and place upon which healthy personhood depends.
The use of the word murder (20:13 NIV) is accurate, for this command does not in itself prohibit warfare or capital punishment. It does prohibit the killing of one individual by another for some self-serving reason such as rage or aggression. It speaks of the value of each individual’s life.
The seventh commandment summarizes the whole sexual ethic by focusing on the breach of marital fidelity. Adultery is thus seen as the most serious sexual sin. All the others are bad, but this one caps them all. Why? Because it is a breach of covenant. It suggests that a person’s sexuality is his or hers to use as he or she wishes regardless of how it affects others. Adultery is also wrong because it suggests that sex can be legitimately expressed outside the bonds of heterosexual covenant.
Stealing (20:15) suggests that I can get something for nothing. Thus it contravenes God’s world of responsibility and discipline. It also denies dependence on God for one’s needs. Finally, this prohibition points to the value of personal property.
The command concerning false testimony helps us to see the focus of the previous three commands. It is not so much that the acts of lying or thievery or sexual infidelity or murder are forbidden in themselves as it is that these ways of treating others are forbidden: do not take somebody’s property, or spouse, or life, or reputation. Thus the Jews could say that these commands are fulfilled in the single command “Love your neighbor” (Mk 12:31; Gal 5:14).
The final commandment (20:17) brings the whole series around full circle. It is the human lust for acquisitions, especially acquisition at the expense of another, that is at the heart of idolatrous religion (Isa 57:17; Col 3:5). God is reduced to gods—a device for getting what we want. Our parents, our spouse, and our neighbor become merely aids or hindrances to that lust to possess. To all of this the Creator pronounces a thunderous “No!”
Ex 20:18-21 recaps the motivational value of the awesome signs. See the comment on 19:16-24.
In the expanded stipulations of the covenant (20:22-23:19), the Israelites were given concrete examples of how the preceding terse, absolute principles would function in everyday life. They are stated in the “if—then” form common to law codes of that time. Some of the laws show great similarity to earlier laws from both Babylon and Sumer. This is not to say that they were copied from those cultures, but that they were a part of the common culture of the day. It is evident that God uses whatever he can from a given setting, purifying it as necessary, to convey his truth to that setting. But by placing these laws in the context of the covenant and the Ten Commandments, he shows that ethical behavior is not merely a matter of social pragmatism, as it appears to be in Babylon and Sumer, but is a means of response to a consistent, purposeful Creator whose own character is ethical and who has already graciously delivered.
The first laws relate to the worship of God (20:22-26). Probably the prohibition against dressed stone altars was another attempt to distinguish Hebrew worship from that of their idolatrous neighbors. See below on 34:17-26.
God’s concern for the helpless follows immediately upon his concern for proper worship (21:1-11). Slavery is not forbidden, as that would leave the destitute with no means of survival. But the institution is strictly regulated, with clear provisions against the creation of a permanent underclass. Servitude for life was possible only through the servant’s own choice. A woman born into poverty had almost no chance of a normal marriage. As unideal as concubinage was, it was preferable to the alternative: prostitution. Given these realities, the laws seek to ensure that the concubine will be treated as a person of worth, not as an expendable sex device (21:7-11).
The next group of laws relate to personal injury (21:12-32). The basic principles are equality (vv.23-25) and responsibility. If a person injured another, whether intentionally (v.14) or as a result of failure to take reasonable precautions (v.29), that person would experience the same results or their equivalent. While there is some differentiation in punishment when injuries occur across class lines (vv.26, 27, 32), these are much less pronounced than in other law codes where, for instance, a slave’s striking a noble was cause for death.
The person who committed manslaughter (21:12-13) was permitted to escape vengeance by living in special protected cities (“A place I will designate”; see Nu 35:6; Dt 4:41-43; 19:2-10.) But the murderer had no such escape. See Dt 19:11-13; 1Ki 2:28-34.
21:15, 17 illustrate the vital importance of the family, especially in that society. See also above on 20:12.
“Punished” (21:20) is literally “suffer vengeance,” if not death itself, something judged equal to the crime. “No serious injury” (vv.22-25) is ambiguous because it is not specified whether the reference is to the mother or the child. Many commentators conclude that it refers to the mother, the child necessarily having died as a result of the premature birth. Others argue that both mother and child are included, “no injury” implying that the child was close enough to term to survive. It is impossible to ascertain which is correct. Freedom for the slave (vv.26-27) would be of more benefit to him or her than the enforcement of a like punishment on the master. Since the owner of the animal is not directly responsible for the death, redemption is possible (v.30).
Ex 21:33-22:15 lists laws relating to property loss. In other cultures thievery was usually punishable by death. Here multiple restitution is the key (22:1). Property does not equal life in value. This law probably provides the basis for Zacchaeus' action in Lk 19:8. Ex 22:2-4 gives some qualifications to this concept. If a householder kills a thief in an act of stealing, he is held to be justified; but if he kills the thief at a later time (“after sunrise,” the next day) he is a murderer.
Since it was common for parcels of land to be small and odd-shaped without clear definition of boundaries, statements such as those found in 22:5-6 were necessary. In complex cases where there is no clear responsibility for theft or loss, an ajudication was required with single restitution for a judgment of negligence and double for malfeasance (22:7-15).
Miscellaneous laws relating to social and religious righteousness (22:16-23:9). The apparently indiscriminate mixing of ceremonial and social laws is a testimony to Israel’s wholistic view of obedience to God. While there was no penalty for premarital sex per se, it was insisted that a marriage result. The bride price (22:16) was a sum of money paid by the groom to the father of the bride. Other laws forbade certain practices associated with the corrupt Canaanite religion (22:18-20). Magic was an attempt to manipulate divine power through rituals apart from commitment, trust, or ethical behavior. As such, it was diametrically opposite of biblical faith. Bestiality (v.19) was one way of expressing the conviction that gods, animals, and humans are all part of one universal system.
All persons are recipients of God’s grace. No one has a right to take advantage of another’s misfortune (22:21-27; see Am 2:7-8, where oppression mixed with incest and ritual prostitution is presented as a particularly vile example of Israel’s apostasy).
The first part of v.29 is obscure. A literal rendering is “do not defer your excess and your juice.” In view of the remainder of the verse, it probably refers to the offering of firstfruits (see below on 23:16). Firstborn sons could not be sacrificed (as firstborn animals had to be). They had to be redeemed on the eighth day after birth (v.30; 13:15; see also Lk 2:23).
The first three verses of ch. 23 provide three pointed examples of what it means not to bear false witness either for or against another. The next six verses prohibit taking advantage of another’s misfortune, not even an enemy’s (vv.4-5).
The final group of stipulations has to do with religious observances (23:10-19). The sabbath principle extended to the land (23:10-11). Not only does this have social value for the poor, but it also allows the land to recover some of its fertility (see Leviticus 25:1-7). Furthermore, it provides relief for the workers, both human and animal. At the heart of all the Hebrew worship was the recognition of God alone. Practically speaking, other gods did not exist for the Hebrews (see also 20:23; 22:20; and the comment on 20:3).
The last laws form a preliminary introduction to the three annual pilgrimage feasts held in April, June, and September. For fuller treatments see Lev 23 and Dt 16. The Feast of Unleavened Bread (23:15) was a week-long festival celebrated during the seven days immediately after Passover about April 1 (see Ex 12:17-20). At about this same time pagans would be celebrating the rising of the vegetation god from the dead. The Israelites were to remember God’s gracious acts in history on their behalf. The Feast of Harvest (23:16) was held seven weeks after the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This was about the first of June at the end of the wheat harvest. This was a feast of thanksgiving to God and a dedication of the tithe to him. It is also called the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Pentecost. The Feast of Ingathering came at the end of the grape harvest, the final harvest of the year, about September 25. It is also called the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths (see Lev 23:33-43). Yeast was symbolic of sin (23:18). There is some reason to believe cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was a Canaanite magic ritual supposed to ensure the mother’s continued fertility (23:19).
The stipulations section of the covenant closes with God’s commitment to his people (23:20-33). In response to their continued covenant obedience, he would wipe out their enemies (vv.22-23, 27-28) and give them long, abundant lives (vv.25-26), establishing them within spacious borders (v.31). The only obstacles to this promise of blessing would be rebellion against God and the worship of the gods of their defeated enemies (vv.24, 32-33). Biblical religion is not compatible with any religion that sees the divine as part of this world. One of the reasons for worshiping the pagan gods was their supposed ability to provide these blessings. But God is the only one who can truly provide them. See also Hos 2:5-8. The conquest would be progressive according to God’s plan (vv.27-30), although not nearly so progressive as the Hebrews' disobedience made it eventually become. The borders described here (v.31) were attained in Solomon’s time.