Release Of Hebrew Bondsmen and Bondswomen (Deuteronomy 15:12-18).
Similar generosity must be shown to ‘Hebrew bondsmen and bondswomen' when they are released after their seven year contract. What follows is not simply the law relating to such as in Exodus 21:1 onwards, most of which is ignored, it is rather an emphasising of attitudes of heart, both the generous attitude which must be shown to the bondspeople when they leave service, and the wonderful relationship that could have been built up between maser and servant which went even beyond that. And while Exodus 21 has in mind a foreign Habiru, here Moses is speaking of a ‘brother or sister', an Israelite or circumcised proselyte. The emphasis is all on the generosity and love which will be pleasing to Yahweh when they come to Him in worship.
The phrase ‘Hebrew bondsman' is an unusual one in the context of the Pentateuch so firstly we must consider what is meant by a Hebrew bondsman. Early Israel never thought of themselves as Hebrews. That idea came very much later. They were called Hebrews by outsiders and would refer to themselves as Hebrews when speaking to outsiders, but it was not a name they ordinarily applied to themselves (see Genesis 14:13; Genesis 39:14; Genesis 39:17; Genesis 41:12; Exodus 1:15 to Exodus 2:13). Abram was ‘the Hebrew' to the people who composed the covenant described in Genesis 14. Joseph was ‘a Hebrew' in Potiphar's house and to the chief butler. The children of Israel were ‘Hebrews' to Pharaoh. The Philistines described the Israelites as ‘Hebrews' (1 Samuel 4:6; 1 Samuel 4:9; etc.). But in all cases the description related to the view of outsiders. It was not a name that Yahweh would apply to them or that they would apply to themselves in internal affairs. Why then is it used in this Law?
In fact it is probable that the reason foreigners saw Israel as ‘Hebrews' was because they linked them with the landless and stateless peoples known as ‘Habiru'. The term Habiru had a long history but in all cases it referred to those who were perceived as landless and stateless, (or were insultingly to be described as such), until at some stage some settled down just as Israel did. They could be mercenaries, slaves, shepherds, miners etc. but they stood out as belonging to no country, and as being ‘have-nots'. This was why Israel were seen as Habiru by others, (although it is possible that they themselves much later took the name and altered it to ‘Hebrew' in their writings to connect back to their ancestor Eber, making it respectable. There is, however, a slight difference etymologically even then. But the ‘coincidence' is too striking to be ignored in the light of the Scripture we have considered).
This being so this would suggest that the Hebrew bondsman or bondswoman who are in mind in Exodus 21 are such persons, landless and stateless persons who have been bought into bondage by an Israelite, either through purchase or through a slave contract. They are persons of no status. It is quite probable that there were many such ‘Hebrew' bondspeople who escaped among the children of Israel, for they had been in Egypt where such bondspeople were available. Here in Deuteronomy the idea is expanded to recognising that there might be Israelite ‘Hebrews', or the idea may be of Habiru who have been circumcised and thus have become ‘brothers'.
Note first that they could only be enslaved for six years. This was stated to be because the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt and should therefore remember and be merciful as they have received mercy (Deuteronomy 15:12). But it is significant in this regard that at Nuzi we learn that ‘Hapiru' there similarly entered into limited servitude, limited to seven years, after which their obligation ended. Thus there seems to have been a general custom that Habiru/Hapiru contracts were for seven years. The point therefore being stressed here is that the seventh year of service must not be required of them in view of Israel's own deliverance from bondage.
So Israel were to be more generous. While theirs was also a seven year contract, they were to give him the seventh year free so that his obligation finished after six years, by this mean taking into account the principles of the Sabbath.
Thus the seven year contract for Hapiru/Habiru seems to have been a general custom of the time. As is pointed out in Deuteronomy 15:18 this was double the normal length of service for an Israelite. Three years are the years of a hired servant (Isaiah 16:14).
However here in Deuteronomy Moses is looking at a slightly different situation than that in Exodus 21 for in contrast this man or woman are seen as a ‘brother/sister', and are not described as ‘slaves'. It is not the six years or the seven years that is in mind here but the attitude when the persons are released.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
a If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold to you, and serve you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you (Deuteronomy 15:12).
b And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty, you shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, and out of your threshing-floor, and out of your winepress: as Yahweh your God has blessed you, you shall give to him (Deuteronomy 15:13-14).
c And you will remember that you were a bondsman in the land of Egypt (Deuteronomy 15:15 a)
c And Yahweh your God redeemed you, therefore I command you this thing today (Deuteronomy 15:15).
b And it shall be, if he say to you, “I will not go out from you,” because he loves you and your house, because he is well with you, then you shall take an awl, and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant for ever. And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise. (Deuteronomy 15:16-17).
a It shall not seem hard to you, when you let him go free from you, for to the double (or ‘equivalence') of the hire of a hireling has he served you six years, and Yahweh your God will bless you in all that you do (Deuteronomy 15:18).
Note that in ‘a' the Hebrew servant is to be released after only six years of the seven, and in the parallel the master must not be annoyed about this for he has had a good six years of service from him and he can know that Yahweh his God will bless him for it. In ‘b' he must let him go well provided for, and in the parallel if the servant does not wish to go free because he loves the household he may be indentured ‘for ever', and that will be equal to him as being well provided for. In ‘c' and its parallel this will be because they remember that they were bondsmen in the land of Egypt and were redeemed by Yahweh from it. That is why Yahweh feels that He can justly demand this ‘favour'.
‘ If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold to you, and serve you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.'
“Brother” need not always indicate an Israelite. The term can be used of any close relationship such as there would be here. But in Deuteronomy ‘brother' does almost always refer to an Israelite, (although Edom is called a brother - Deuteronomy 23:7), and especially in this chapter, sometimes even being contrasted with the ‘foreigner'. Thus it would seem that we have here the unfortunate example of an Israelite man or woman (or a proselyte) who had fallen on such hard times that they had become the equivalent of a Habiru even in Israelite eyes, and were being treated as such. They had lost their land and were seen as a kind of refugee, having had to sell themselves into bondage under a seven year bond.
We should note that there were a variety of different forms of service in Israel (and among their neighbours). Putting it simply these included hired servants, debt slaves who had to work off a debt by a period of service, and people who entered into a bond to perform service for a certain period in return for an initial payment or a guarantee of a livelihood or some other basis of obligation (bondsmen). The Habiru often survived in this way so that ‘a Hebrew man' probably means that this man was taken on on the same basis as a Habiru. Then there were foreign slaves who were purchased or captured, and so on. The position of these last was permanent. But Leviticus 25:39-41 says that no Israelite must be enslaved by another Israelite. He may be purchased but he must be treated as though he were a hired servant and released in the year of Yubile. There the idea was of a permanent ‘slavery' situation, but somewhat ameliorated because the person was an Israelite. That is different from here.
This person is seen as under a typical Habiru seven year contract, but because he/she is an Israelite (either trueborn or proselyte) they are not called slaves (in contrast with Exodus 21), while still having the same responsibilities. They presumably had to be treated as a hired servant as in the provision in Leviticus 25. But this was a different type of obligation from that in Leviticus. It was simply a seven year bond, although as in Leviticus the word ‘slave' was not used. The fact that he/she was an Israelite (including proselytes) would explain why nothing needed to be said about wife and children on his departure. They would, as a family, already be within the covenant (contrast the position in Exodus 21), and therefore would not need to be divided. They would be released with him/her, for when they went out it would not be outside the covenant situation. In Exodus a non-member of the covenant was in mind, which was why the issue of what happened to his wife and children became important.
But the point is that here this Israelite is being bound by a standard Habiru contract to serve for seven years, although in fact because of the sabbath laws he/she will only be required to serve six years. He/she is to be let free in the seventh year.
‘ And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty, you shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, and out of your threshing-floor, and out of your winepress: as Yahweh your God has blessed you, you shall give to him.'
But because he is a brother/sister, when he is released he must be amply provided for with food of all kinds, on a level consonant with the wealth of the master who releases him. The master must give as Yahweh has blessed him and provide for him liberally with ample food and wine to take with him. He must not go away empty.
‘ And you will remember that you were a bondsman in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God redeemed you, therefore I command you this thing today.'
And the master will do this generously because he will remember that he himself had been a bondsman in the land of Egypt, and that he himself had been delivered by Yahweh Who had bought him out of his bondage. In gratitude he will be as generous as Yahweh has been to him. It is this generosity to his bondsman that is the major emphasis here. It will bring pleasure to Yahweh.
‘ And it shall be, if he say to you, “I will not go out from you,” because he loves you and your house, because he is well with you,'
However, even an Israelite bondsman/woman may prefer such service to being released and having to face the world. We must not compare this with slavery as known in the last few hundred years. In those days such people could hold high and privileged positions and be seen as one of the family. They may well prefer to remain in their cosy sinecure. In that case they could request to become an ‘ebed ‘olam (a perpetual henchman), regularly someone of value and importance. Such slaves were known from elsewhere and are mentioned at Ugarit. This might especially appeal to an older person without family, or someone who might find it difficult to build a life on the ‘outside'. They would have a place for life in a satisfactory environment, loving and being loved.
Note here that in contrast with Exodus 21 the reason for wanting to stay is love for the master. It is totally amicable and with no constraint. There was no danger in this case (in the case of the bondsman) of him not being able to take his wife with him, for both would continue within the covenant (see for this our commentary on Exodus). But he does not want to go out because he loves his master.
‘ Then you shall take an awl, and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant for ever. And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise.'
This ceremony is paralleled in Exodus 21 but there it is an official one before justices. It may in fact also be so here, but if it is Moses does not mention it. It may, however, be that because he/she is an Israelite it could be more informal. The fastening of the ear to the door represented him/her as becoming a member of the household for ever. He/she had been permanently adopted into the household. All would recognise their ‘attachment' to the household.
‘ It shall not seem hard to you, when you let him go free from you, for to the double (or ‘equivalence') of the hire of a hireling has he served you six years, and Yahweh your God will bless you in all that you do.'
On the other hand if the person opts for freedom, the contract being ended, the master must not be grudging about it. He has after all performed double the service of a hired servant (three years - Isaiah 16:14). Or it may mean ‘the equivalent service of a hired servant'. And the master is promised that Yahweh will see his generous attitude and bless him in all he does.
The point behind all this is the generosity of spirit that must be shown, especially to fellow-members of the covenant, which will be pleasing to Yahweh, especially when worshipping at the Central Sanctuary, a matter which Moses now returns to. It goes along with their having been chosen by Yahweh and redeemed from bondage.
Not many of us have Habiru bondsmen whom we have to release. But many do release people who have been working for them for years, and all of us are sometimes obliged to people for service performed. The principle is that we too should be generous when the situation ceases.