Chapter Twenty-One
Rules Regarding Slaves
21:1 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them.
God begins what is often referred to as social legislation or civil regulation. By using the Hebrew term ‘miš·pāṭ’[1] or more accurately ‘miš·pā·ṭîm’ for plural (translated here as ‘rules’, can also refer to judgment, justice as well as an ordinance, regulation, or statute), this clearly differentiates the following text from the Ten Words and the instruction regarding altars and idols. Some believe this is the beginning of the “Book of the Covenant” (see Exodus 24:7).
21:2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.
God begins these new regulations with slavery, undoubtedly a sensitive subject as they were recently released from cruel slavery themselves. Here God does something that is certainly an important variation from slavery around the world, He only allows the Israelites to ‘own’ another Hebrew for a maximum of six years. Then after that period, he is to be released without any further remuneration. Note again the pattern, six years of work followed by release (rest).
As mentioned earlier the Hebrew word ‘ě’·ḇěḏ’ can also refer to a servant.[2] It can also refer to a range of economic and social roles including those that might have been reduced to servitude due to poverty. The context in this section supports the use of the term ‘slave’ and not servant or any other employee/employer relationship. While the English text here uses male pronouns, these rules apply equally to females (see Numbers 5:6). Women were also allowed to be the owners.
21:3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.
If the Hebrew slave is not married when bought, he is not allowed to be married during his time of service, except for the conditions given in the following verse. If he is married prior to being a slave, his wife is to be allowed to stay with him and be released at the same time as her husband.
21:4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone.
In order to marry during their time of service, they will need to be given a bride from their master. However, if the wife gives birth to any children, the wife and the children remain the property of the master. Even though most marriages in ancient Israel were arranged, one can see why this verse is controversial.
Does this mean that the wife and children stayed as slaves/servants for the rest of their lives? Not at all. If a servant wanted his wife and children to go free also, he seems to have had three main options: (a) He could simply wait for them all to finish their terms of service, while he himself worked somewhere else. The disadvantage of this arrangement is that he either could not live with his family or would have to pay for his own room and board at his former boss’s farm. (b) He could find a good job somewhere and earn enough money to pay his former boss to get his wife and children out of their contractual obligation. The disadvantage of this arrangement is that it would have been difficult to find any job that would allow him to earn enough money to support himself and at the same time accumulate the sort of wealth that would cover the cost of compensating a boss for several years’ worth of the labor of several full-time workers, which is what the wife and children represented to the boss. (c) He could agree to continue to work permanently for his boss. The disadvantage of this latter arrangement is that it would keep him a contract employee for the rest of his life. The advantage is that it would allow him to stay with his family, all of whom would have their basic needs met as well as having the spendable income they earned through the terms of their contracts and all of whom would have reasonably stable financial circumstances during their lifetimes. The attractiveness of such an arrangement on balance is presumably one factor that underlies the following law about the option of voluntary permanent service.[3]
21:5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
If a slave enjoys working for his master, he can choose to be his servant from that time on. The word ‘slave’ in verse six is the Hebrew word ‘ǎḇāḏ’[4] (not ‘ě’·ḇěḏ’), it refers to service and is usually translated as serve, work, or labor. Making the once slave to be more like an employee or servant, often referred to as a ‘bondservant’, a person who volunteers to serve another. The period of servitude is listed as ‘forever’, or at least until the jubilee year when liberty is proclaimed for all inhabitants of Israel (see Leviticus 25:10).
The master is to bring him to God, as he will be swearing to serve the master before God, making this a binding agreement. In this process he is to have his ear pierced with an awl into the door or doorpost of the master’s house.
21:7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
This and the next four verses pertain to a concept very foreign to most people, the selling of one’s daughter. If a person was destitute and could not pay restitution or some other obligation, children could be sold. The female slave could not be released as male slaves were, the sale would assume marriage to the master or his son, as the contract for her would have been for both servant and wife, as determined in the next verse.
Rabbinic interpretation restricted the power of the father to dispose of his daughter in this way. He could do so only so long as she was a minor, that is, below the age of twelve years and a day, and then only if he was utterly destitute. She could not sell herself into slavery nor could she be sold by a court as an insolvent thief, as could a male, in order to make restitution for the stolen articles. Further, she could not be designated to be the wife of the master or his son without her knowledge.[5]
21:8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.
If the female slave was to be a wife or concubine and for whatever reason she did not please her master, she was to be redeemed. She would be allowed to be purchased back by her father or some other relative, but could not be sold to a non-Hebrew, since the master broke his promise. The reference to “broken faith” refers to the fact that the master had intentions that he could not fulfill. Some believe that the ‘he’ in the second sentence could refer to either the master or father, or both, preventing her from being sold.
21:9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter.
If the female slave was bought for the slave owner’s son to marry, he was not to treat her as a slave but as a daughter.
21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
If the master marries another wife, he is to continue treating the female slave as a wife and not restrict her from food and clothing. The term “marital rights,” is the Hebrew word ‘ō·nāṯ’,[6] referring to conjugal rights, she is to retain sexual intimacy with her husband.
21:11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
If the master does not provide the food, clothing or sexual intimacy as listed in the previous verse, the female slave is to be released without payment.
21:12 “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. 13 But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee.
Moving to the next subject, God identifies the difference between the intentional and accidental killing of another human being. The expression “lie in wait,” refers to a deliberate act, pointing to the person’s desire to kill. If a person accidentally killed another, God would appoint a safe place for the person to flee to and live. Note how God alone has the authority over life and death, here He identifies Himself as the one who, “let him,” the person who dies, “fall into his,” the killer’s ‘hand’. Today, accidental killing is referred to as manslaughter.[7]
There will be six locations for the accidental killer to flee to, they will be known as “cities of refuge,” (see Numbers 35:6-30; Joshua chapter 21). Why do they need to flee? One of the duties of a kinsman-redeemer (also known as the “avenger of blood”), was to avenge a murder (see Numbers 35:19-21; Deuteronomy 19:12; 2 Samuel 3:27-30, see also Considerations under Genesis 4:23-24 and commentary under Genesis 48:13-16). If it involved an accidental killing, the instructions outlined in Numbers 35:22-29 were to be followed: “But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait or used a stone that could cause death, and without seeing him dropped it on him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these rules. And the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he had fled, and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. But if the manslayer shall at any time go beyond the boundaries of his city of refuge to which he fled, and the avenger of blood finds him outside the boundaries of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood. For he must remain in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest, but after the death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession. And these things shall be for a statute and rule for you throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.” This regulation only applies to manslaughter, not murder.
21:14 But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.
A person who commits murder is to be put to death, even if they seek refuge being near an altar to God. It is believed that the Israelites were aware of the pagan practice that allowed seeking sanctuary at a sacrifice altar, this was to inform them that this practice was unacceptable to God.
21:15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
This verse is considered controversial and is often the stopping point for many readers. Capital punishment is acceptable by most for murder, but for striking a parent? Since there is no age requirement stated, this verse applies to children of all ages. God created the concept of family and, as we read the rules given to the Israelites, we can see how important the family structure is to God. Obedience is important for a relationship with God, and it is important for relationship with parents. Parents are to be honored (see Exodus 20:12), not to be abused, hit, or cursed (see verse 17).
21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
If someone kidnaps another person for the purpose of selling them into slavery, they are to be put to death. The same punishment applied to the buyer if the kidnapped person is found in their possession.
21:17 “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
The Hebrew word ‘qālal’[8] is a word that is used in many ways; the basic meaning is to be light or slight, making something trivial or swift. Here are a few examples found in the Old Testament (all examples from ESV). It can be used to refer to:
The word can be used to describe speaking lightly of another or cursing another (lowering or doing harm to a person), for example:
The word can also be found translated as accursed, blaspheming, contemptuously, despise, vile, etc.
A child is to respect their parents, this is the order God intended. If someone makes light of their parents, such as in anger or another form of cursing, this would be a form of rebellion against God (see also commentary under Leviticus 20:9). Later in the book of Leviticus we will see that it is also offensive to God to rob Him of His honor by using His name to express anger to another (see Leviticus 24:10-23).
21:18 “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.
If men fight and one becomes injured and ends up in bed to recover from his wounds and later can walk, even with the assistance of his staff, the person who inflicted the wounds is not guilty of manslaughter. However, he is responsible for the injured man’s lost time and the cost of any care he received until he was completely healed.
21:20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
These two verses along with verses 26-27 protect slaves from corporal punishment. The Hebrew word ‘šē’·ḇěṯ’,[9] translated here as ‘rod’, can refer to either a rod or a tribe, depending on context. As a rod, as it is used here, is typically a common tool often referred to as a shepherd’s staff (see Leviticus 27:32; Ezekiel 20:37); but can also refer to a weapon (2 Samuel 23:21); a spear (see 2 Samuel 18:14); as a rod to administer discipline (see 2 Samuel 7:14; Proverbs 10:13; 13:24; 22:15; 29:15); and “Because of the association between smiting and ruling, the rod became a symbol of the authority of the one bearing it; thus, this word can also mean a scepter”[10]
If a slave is beaten with a rod and dies as the result of the beating, their death shall be avenged (Hebrew ’nāqam’,[11] referring to vengeance, revenge, or punishment, in verse 20 the word is repeated to emphasize the command, although not usually translated). If it was indeed murder, they would be put to death (see Numbers 35:18). However, if the slave remained alive for one or two days, the master is not to be punished as the slave is his ‘money’. The rationale would be that since the slave has value, but only if alive, the owner is unlikely to intentionally kill a slave.
21:22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.
If men fight and one accidentally hits a pregnant woman that causes her to give birth prematurely, but no further injury results that person will be fined by the husband up to the limit the judges approve.
Some pro-abortion advocates believe that this verse refers to the actions of the fight causing a miscarriage instead of a premature birth. Giving rise to the belief that since this verse refers only to a financial settlement and not considered a capital crime, then one could then consider the unborn fetus at that time as not being a human being, which would be a wrong interpretation. Perhaps the most important tool in studying the Bible is context,[12] no verse or set of verses should ever be taken out of context, which includes examining Scripture before and after. Here the following three verses easily invalidates this point of view.
21:23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,
The concept of a life for a life is clearly stated, however, this verse and several other similarly worded verses (see Genesis 4:23-24; Leviticus 24:17-21; Numbers 35:31; Deuteronomy 19:21), have been the subject of debate for thousands of years and the debate continues today. An early Jewish commentary (midrash) on the book of Exodus, the Mekhilta, as interpreted by Rabbi Ishmael, offers two contrasting viewpoints, however, it appears that the second option does not take into consideration context:
It is with life that he must pay for life. He cannot pay for life with money. Another Interpretation: Then Thou Shalt Give Life, etc. With life only shall he pay, but he is not to pay for a life with life and with money. Rabbi says: Then Thou Shalt Give Life for Life. This means, monetary compensation. You interpret it to mean monetary compensation. Perhaps this is not so, but it means death? Behold, you reason thus: Here the expression “laying upon” is used and there (v. 30) the expression “laying upon” is used. Just as the expression “laying upon” used there implies only monetary compensation, so also here it implies only monetary compensation.[13]
21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Continuing with the theme of the previous verse, a life for a life, God applies that approach to eyes, teeth, hands, feet, burns, wounds, and bruises (Hebrew word ‘ḥǎb·bû·rā(h)’,[14] translated here as ‘stripes’, can refer to a bruise, wound, or injury, although in context it can also refer to the blow or mistreatment that caused the injury). Often referred to as the “law of talion” (from the Latin word ‘talio’) referring to a retaliation authorized by law in which the punishment corresponds directly in kind as well as in degree of the injury. By their very nature, talion laws are often misunderstood and can be controversial, especially if they are interpreted literally. The primary goal of these laws is to provide a path for justice if someone were to seriously injure or cripple another.
No evidence exists that any judges in the ancient world ever actually required a literal application of talion law beyond the first of its terms, “life for life.” In cases of murder, the murderer was put to death as a “life for life” satisfaction of the law. But beyond that, there was no actual taking of someone’s eye in exchange for his having ruined the eye of another person, nor was a tooth knocked out of a person in exchange for a tooth knocked out of someone else by that person and so on through the “bruise for bruise” penalty. Instead, expressions like “eye for eye” were understood idiomatically to mean “a penalty that hurts the person who ruined someone else’s eye as much as he would be hurt if his own eye were actually ruined also.” The precise penalty was left up to the judges by talion law; it might involve anything from banishment to loss of property (and/or property rights) to punitive confinement to special financial penalties to corporal punishment to public humiliation, or to any combination of these. In support of this understanding of how talion laws were actually applied, an example of the nonliteralistic application of talion law follows immediately in vv. 26–27, in which the case of a servant’s master damaging the eye or tooth of a servant required the loss of the servant’s labor, not the gouging out of the master’s eye or tooth.[15]
When the historian Josephus wrote about these commandments, he referred to an allowance of an alternate response:
He that maimeth anyone, let him undergo the like himself, and be deprived of the same member of which he hath deprived the other, unless he that is maimed will accept of money instead of it; for the law makes the sufferer the judge of the value of what he hath suffered, and permits him to estimate it, unless he will be more severe.[16]
21:26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
Even though a slave is considered property, or as verse 21 phrases it, “the slave is his money,” his rights over that person are not absolute, here human rights are superior to the owner’s rights. Generally interpreted to refer to any loss of limb or any indispensable part of the body, such as an eye or a tooth, the slave is to be released.
21:28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable.
If an ox gores and kills a man or woman, the animal is to be put to death. It is interesting to note that the ox is to be killed by stoning, a mode of execution usually associated for human execution, perhaps indicating the sanctity of human life. The ox is then to be disposed of (usually burned) and not eaten (forbidden to make any further use or gain any value from it). The owner is not to be held liable in this scenario, however if the ox has a history of goring, the next verse comes into play.
21:29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.
If an ox has gored people in the past and the owner had been warned to keep the animal fenced in or tied up, and the ox kills a man or woman, the ox is to be stoned to death. Its owner is also to be put to death; however, the text does not explicitly state the method, it is assumed to be death by stoning as well.
21:30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him.
However, if the relatives of the person who was gored to death understood it was an accident, then they could assess a fee, a process known as “redemption through ransom,” instead of executing the owner of the ox.
21:31 If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule.
If the ox gores a man’s son or daughter, although no reference to age is given it is assumed to refer to younger children, the same rules (see verses 28-30) would still apply.
21:32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
If an ox gores a slave to death, the owner of the ox is to pay thirty shekels of silver to the slave’s master. The ox is then stoned, however there is no capital punishment for the owner as it is presumed that the slave was doing something for their master and therefore the master should assume some of the responsibility for the slave’s death. Some believe this refers to injuries and not death, although one could then question why the animal was to be stoned to death.
Considerations
The concept of being a bondservant is often unnecessarily convoluted, in simple terms it refers to someone who has voluntarily chosen to serve another. Here it is interesting to note that once a person chooses to accept being a servant to another, that they are to come and be reconciled before God and then be pierced leaving a scar for all to see. Later we read this in Isaiah’s description of the coming Messiah (see Isaiah 52:13-53:12) that He was pierced for our transgressions (see Isaiah 53:5) pointing to Jesus, who when He was crucified, was pierced for our sins, and now still bears the scars of those piercings (see Luke 24:40; John 20:20, 24-29).
Paul noted several times in his epistles that believers are bondservants belonging to Jesus (see Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Galatians 1:10; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 4:12; 2 Timothy 2:24; Titus 1:1). “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)
There are three places in Scripture where there is a reference to thirty pieces of silver, which is considered to be a small amount (less than three-quarters of a pound). The first is here in this chapter regarding the price to recompense for the death of a slave gored by an ox (see verse 32). The second location is found in the middle of a prophecy given to Zechariah regarding Israel’s future falling out of favor with God and the future break of Israel into two separate kingdoms. In Zechariah, the thirty pieces of silver represents a meager payment to a shepherd to demonstrate their ingratitude and contempt towards God (see Zechariah 11:12). This ultimate act of defiance was later seen through their rejection of the Messiah, also a shepherd (see John 10:11), as the details of this prophecy came to be reality in the New Testament. Judas, one of Jesus’ disciples, betrayed Jesus and was rewarded with thirty pieces of silver by the religious leaders of the Jews (see Matthew 26:14-16).
How are these stories connected? It is interesting to note that the law states that if a slave is killed, by no actions of his own, he could be purchased for thirty pieces of silver by the one who may be responsible for the death. Jesus the suffering servant, who also died by no actions of His own doing, was also purchased (betrayed) for thirty pieces of silver by those responsible for His death as prophesied in the book of Zechariah.
For the Jew, the reasons to observe the law varied through the years from rabbi to rabbi. Much of their literature explored the who, the what, and how of God’s law, but perhaps to the surprise of many, they also explored the why.
Why should Jews observe the commandments? Are they to be obeyed merely because they represent the will of God or because they possess some intrinsic meaning designed to spiritually improve the person who performs them, or for both reasons? Throughout the centuries, the answers to these questions have varied among the classical Jewish texts. Some have argued that we should not search for reasons for the mitzvot since they transcend our understanding, while others have maintained that every effort should be made to discover their underlying meanings. Abraham Joshua Heschel observed that “in doing more than we understand, we come to understand more than we do”—of ourselves, the tradition, and the world.[17]
Recognizing that humans cannot keep the law and knowing that the primary purpose of the law was to help people realize that they are indeed sinners, can promote apathy among some Christians. Why should they obey God as they are forgiven? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:13-16, see also 1 Peter 2:12; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:2-3) Our response to Him is not out of compulsion, as Jesus did all the work for salvation, we follow and obey to demonstrate our love for God and to bring glory to Him.
Our sin, or lack of obedience, can cause a Christian to fall away from God, preventing close fellowship with Jesus. Paul wrote, “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:5-8) If a Christian fails to obey, and they will, once they recognize their error, they should repent and seek forgiveness, as He is faithful and will forgive (see 1 John 1:5-10).
Rules About Restitution
21:33 “When a man opens a pit, or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make restoration. He shall give money to its owner, and the dead beast shall be his.
The next section regarding restitution; the compensation for something lost, stolen, broken, or animal maimed or killed; begins here and extends through chapter 22 to verse 15. The Hebrew word translated here as ‘restoration’, is ‘yešǎl·lēm’,[18] which has the primary meaning of being safe or uninjured, varies significantly on how it is used and can, depending on context, be translated as: repaid, repay, pay, restitution, reward, peace, peaceable, finished, complete, rendered, gives, etc.
Here, if a man digs a hole and leaves it uncovered or exposes an existing hole without taking caution to cover it, and a work animal, such as an ox or donkey falls into it, he is to take responsibility for any damage. The one that left the hole uncovered is to pay for the animal that fell into it. Note that there is no mention regarding cost, nor is there any mention what to do regarding an injured animal (although many interpret that this applies to injured work animals as well, since they will, more than likely, later be killed if it is a serious injury).
21:35 “When one man’s ox butts another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and share its price, and the dead beast also they shall share. 36 Or if it is known that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall repay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his.
If someone’s ox injures another and that ox dies from the injury, the two owners are to share in the sale of both the living animal and the sale of the meat of the other. However, if the one that kills the other has a history of goring, and was not penned, the owner of that animal is fully responsible and must pay for the dead ox and it becomes his property.
⇐Previous Chapter (Introduction/Index) Next Chapter⇒
[1] Strong’s Hebrew 4941.
[2] See Considerations after Genesis 9:28.
[3] Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (Vol. 2, pp. 479–480). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[4] Strong’s Hebrew 5647.
[5] Sarna, N. M. (1991). Exodus (p. 120). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
[6] Strong’s Hebrew 5772.
[7] See Considerations under Genesis 33:18-20 and the commentary under Exodus 20:13.
[8] Strong’s Hebrew 7043.
[9] Strong’s Hebrew 7626.
[10] Baker, W., & Carpenter, E. E. (2003). The complete word study dictionary: Old Testament (p. 1091). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
[11] Strong’s Hebrew 5358.
[12] See Bible Study Tip No. 2 at the beginning of Genesis chapter six.
[13] Lauterbach, J. Z. (2004). Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (New ed., p. 401). Philadelphia, Pa: Jewish Publication Society.
[14] Strong’s Hebrew 2250.
[15] Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (Vol. 2, pp. 493–494). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[16] Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: complete and unabridged (p. 122). Peabody: Hendrickson.
[17] Eisenberg, R. L. (2004). The JPS guide to Jewish traditions (1st ed., p. 517). Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
[18] Strong’s Hebrew 7999.