John Calvin Commentary Exodus 21:7

"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do." — Exodus 21:7 (ASV)

From this passage, as well as other similar ones, it plainly appears how many vices were necessarily tolerated among this people. It was entirely an act of barbarism that fathers should sell their children for the relief of their poverty, yet it could not be corrected as might have been hoped.

Again, the sanctity of the marriage vow should have been greater than to allow a master to repudiate his bondmaid after he had betrothed her to himself as his wife, or, when he had betrothed her to his son, to annul that covenant, which is inviolable. For that principle ought always to hold true: Those whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9).

Yet liberty was granted to the ancient people in all these matters; only provision is made here that the poor girls should not suffer disgrace 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 allowed.

First of all, He does not allow a master to seduce his purchased female servant; if he wishes to enjoy her embraces, a marriage must take place. For although He does not state this in express terms, we may still infer from what He condemns that the contrary is what He approves. From this, 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 female sex is treated with consideration, so that the condition of a female might be somewhat more favorable than that of a male, since otherwise their weakness would make young women subject to injury and shame. An explanation then follows, about which, however, interpreters differ.

For some read the particle לא,⁷⁴ lo, which is properly negative, for לו, lo; and from this arise two opposite meanings: if he has, or has not, betrothed her to himself. If one prefers to take it affirmatively, the meaning of the precept will be: if a master repudiates his bondmaid, whom he has loved and destined to be his wife, he must give her her freedom.

For although it literally says, 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. 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 if there were no marriage contract, it was not otherwise lawful to sell slaves of the holy and elect people to foreigners. Besides, among the Israelites, slavery was only temporary. But, to pass by everything else, let it be enough to observe the absurdity that a master should hold his wife as a slave to be sold at will, if the opinion of those who suppose that the words refer to repudiation after betrothal is accepted.

⁷⁵ I myself rather approve of the other opinion: that, although the master has not aspired to matrimony with her, if her appearance displeases him so that he would be unwilling to have her as his wife, he must at least provide for her redemption. This is 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 simpler, and a caution is given so that masters should not seduce their female servants at their pleasure. Thus the word despise⁷⁶ does not refer to repudiation, but is opposed to beauty or conjugal love.

The next case is if he should betroth her to his son (he must give her a dowry,⁷⁷). In this, also, her modesty and honor are considered, so that she should not 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 clothing, or of some third thing, about which translators are not well agreed. Some render it time, but I do not see what is the meaning of diminishing her time. Others render it duty of marriage, but this is too free a translation.

Others, more correctly, render it affliction, since the girl would be humiliated by her repudiation; still, to diminish affliction is too harsh an expression for compensating 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 has married another wife, the girl who has suffered ignominious rejection should obtain her rights as to food, clothing, and her appointed dowry. Otherwise, God commands that she should be set free gratuitously, so 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., 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, “., “If she please not.” Margin, “Heb., Be evil in the eyes of, etc.”., Be evil in the eyes of, etc.”

⁷⁷ Added from Fr., in which there is much verbal difference here.., in which there is much verbal difference here.