In what context is Exodus 21:20-21 good?

[Kees Hogenbirk]

Okay, so I'm not going to pretend that I've thoroughly studied the book of exodus.

But I'm still curious. I'm going to make 2 assumptions here. Please let me know if any of these 2 are wrong.
1: The entire Bible is the word of God, the creator of everything.
2: God is purely good.

Question: can you explain to me in what context the quote that beating a servant without the servant dying in 1 or 2 days without being punished for it is, or has ever been good in any situation?

I've not copied the verse so you can look it up in your preferred Bible version. As far as I'm aware, they don't differ on a crucial level.

 

[Dave L]

Okay, so I'm not going to pretend that I've thoroughly studied the book of exodus.

But I'm still curious. I'm going to make 2 assumptions here. Please let me know if any of these 2 are wrong.
1: The entire Bible is the word of God, the creator of everything.
2: God is purely good.

Question: can you explain to me in what context the quote that beating a servant without the servant dying in 1 or 2 days without being punished for it is, or has ever been good in any situation?

I've not copied the verse so you can look it up in your preferred Bible version. As far as I'm aware, they don't differ on a crucial level.

““If a man beats his male or female slave with a stick, and the slave dies on the spot, the owner must be punished. But if the slave gets well after a day or two, the owner will not be punished since the slave belongs to him.” Exodus 21:20–21 (NCV)

 

[A_Thinker]

““If a man beats his male or female slave with a stick, and the slave dies on the spot, the owner must be punished. But if the slave gets well after a day or two, the owner will not be punished since the slave belongs to him.” Exodus 21:20–21 (NCV)

My view is that God's revelation is progressive. It does not seek to solve all issues at once, though it does set in motion a TIMED PLAN for the resolution of all things.

Justification for this view can be found in Jesus' response to those who attempted to push him into various seemingly GOOD directions.

He would reply to them often ... "The time for that is not yet."

Getting back to your question, the issue of the Old Testament was demonstrating to mankind that it was needful for men and women to commit to God's (upcoming) plan of redemption.

Mankind could not, even with the best guidance, sustain an enduring righteousness.

So, in the OT Law, God gave instruction which would IMPROVE the moral performance of the Israelites, as opposed to making them perfect.

Societies, in those days, embraced slavery, abuses, and other injustices. So the Law said, IF you are going to be a slave owner, then be a MORE JUST and MERCIFUL slave owner. If the Israelites could have even adequately performed this first set of instructions, perhaps God would have given them a PHASE 2 set of instructions to, perhaps, actually usher them out of such practices.

But, of course, the Israelites, being human, could not even accomplish what God instructed in the Law, Phase 1, so we never got to that point.

Which, of course, sets us up for reception of God's plan of salvation, as offered in the New Testament.

 

[eleos1954]

Okay, so I'm not going to pretend that I've thoroughly studied the book of exodus.

But I'm still curious. I'm going to make 2 assumptions here. Please let me know if any of these 2 are wrong.
1: The entire Bible is the word of God, the creator of everything.
2: God is purely good.

Question: can you explain to me in what context the quote that beating a servant without the servant dying in 1 or 2 days without being punished for it is, or has ever been good in any situation?

I've not copied the verse so you can look it up in your preferred Bible version. As far as I'm aware, they don't differ on a crucial level.

Here's a pretty good article that addresses this and more ...

Feedback: Does the Bible Encourage Masters to Beat Their Slaves?

God is indeed good .... ALL the terrible things in this world ... past, present and future are due to SIN. There is nothing wrong or bad about God ... there is something wrong and bad within us and the world and that is SIN.

We are not living in the world as God originally created ... it was totally polluted due to SIN entering the world ... through satan.

God put in place the plan of salvation that one day will restore mankind's relationship with Him and with one another. Jesus took the sins of the entire world upon Himself and willingly gave His life ... to create the way back to God and to be restored as He originally created us to be ... WITHOUT SIN.

John 15:13
Berean Study Bible
Greater love has no one than this, that he (Jesus) lay down his life for his friends.

We need to quit blaming God for sin in the world. This is exactly what satans MO is ... destroy/distort the real loving character of God .... make people believe God is unjust, ego centric, a barbaric dictator ... cruel ... doesn't care etc. twist Gods words of truth, place doubt ... satan propagating lies ... lies .... lies ... about the true loving character of our awesome God. For every one of Gods truths .... satan has a deceptive lie.

Place the blame of everything terrible where it belongs .... on satan's head.

Mankind in it's past, present and future will have to endure the effects from SIN until He returns, ends it all and picks up all the survivors ;o) personally I pray it is soon!

 

[Caliban]

Here's a pretty good article that addresses this and more ...

Feedback: Does the Bible Encourage Masters to Beat Their Slaves?

God is indeed good .... ALL the terrible things in this world ... past, present and future are due to SIN. There is nothing wrong or bad about God ... there is something wrong and bad within us and the world and that is SIN.

The text does not have to encourage it--it merely permits it. That is immoral enough.

 

[Holoman]

The text does not have to encourage it--it merely permits it. That is immoral enough.

Lots of things are permitted by the laws of a state yet are immoral. You are legally allowed to cheat on your wife, yet it's a deplorable thing to do.

These are the laws of the State of Israel, which haven't applied to Christians for 2,000 years, and were declared to be imperfect due to the imperfect people they applied to. I'm sure they'd be just as horrified at our legalised adultery as we are at their legalised corporal punishment. Different peoples, different times.

 

[Caliban]

Lots of things are permitted by the laws of a state yet are immoral. You are legally allowed to cheat on your wife, yet it's a deplorable thing to do.

These are the laws of the State of Israel, which haven't applied to Christians for 2,000 years, and were declared to be imperfect due to the imperfect people they applied to. I'm sure they'd be just as horrified at our legalised adultery as we are at their legalised corporal punishment. Different peoples, different times.

But, our laws today are not God's laws as the Old Testament authors claim. Those are supposed to be perfect and righteous. Your example does not work. How can God's law be imperfect? Where is that said in the text of scripture. Are you thinking of 1 Corinthians 13--that seems to apply to the Spirit or something else. Are you thinking of Matthew 5: 17-18? That does not make immoral laws moral--it simply nullifies some of them. The fact remains: there are laws in the OT that we not consider immoral. A perfectly moral and omniscient God should have been able to conceive of, and implement a perfect moral system for people to strive toward. Allowing people to own another person for example, is not a law from a forward thinking moral being. It just sounds like a human wrote it.

 

[durangodawood]

...These are the laws of the State of Israel...

Thats how I see them: Laws of Israel, by Israel. Not for Israel and by God.

 

[Caliban]

Thats how I see them: Laws of Israel, by Israel. Not for Israel and by God.

Does that apply to "thus says the Lord" injunctions?

 

[durangodawood]

Does that apply to "thus says the Lord" injunctions?

Yes. That how they gave authority to their laws.

 

[Caliban]

Yes. That how they gave authority to their laws.

In your view, is God actively involved in the creation of these laws? What I'm getting at is some people believe these laws come from God in a way that is direct and the human authors are conduits of Gods will through divine inspiration (a rather Protestant view). It seems like you have a different, more nuanced view--can you elaborate?

 

[Sketcher]

Okay, so I'm not going to pretend that I've thoroughly studied the book of exodus.

But I'm still curious. I'm going to make 2 assumptions here. Please let me know if any of these 2 are wrong.
1: The entire Bible is the word of God, the creator of everything.
2: God is purely good.

Question: can you explain to me in what context the quote that beating a servant without the servant dying in 1 or 2 days without being punished for it is, or has ever been good in any situation?

I've not copied the verse so you can look it up in your preferred Bible version. As far as I'm aware, they don't differ on a crucial level.

OK, here are the verses in the ESV, along with the verses beforehand which are relevant to the answer:

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.
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.

The freedman is to be monetarily compensated for the lost productivity that was a consequence for the time he had to spend in recovery. The slave however, is part of the slave-master's capacity to earn money. The slave could have been working had the slave-master not beat him in such a way. The slave-master already lost the productivity of his slave. The consequence for beating a freedman like that had to be enforced with law, but the equal consequence for beating the slave was built into the natural consequences of losing the slave's productivity. No law was needed to take money out of his resources since he already squandered it by overly beating his slave.

 

[Caliban]

OK, here are the verses in the ESV, along with the verses beforehand which are relevant to the answer:

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.
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.

The freedman is to be monetarily compensated for the lost productivity that was a consequence for the time he had to spend in recovery. The slave however, is part of the slave-master's capacity to earn money. The slave could have been working had the slave-master not beat him in such a way. The slave-master already lost the productivity of his slave. The consequence for beating a freedman like that had to be enforced with law, but the equal consequence for beating the slave was built into the natural consequences of losing the slave's productivity. No law was needed to take money out of his resources since he already squandered it by overly beating his slave.

That's horrific, God shouldn't have allowed people to own another person. That whole scenario could have been solved with one statement: Thou shalt not own another person. It could have gone right next to not eating shellfish.

 

[Sketcher]

That's horrific, God shouldn't have allowed people to own another person. That whole scenario could have been solved with one statement: Thou shalt not own another person. It could have gone right next to not eating shellfish.

That's changing the argument. The existence of the institution of slavery is another matter entirely - and the Christian abolitionists, motivated by their view of the New Testament Scriptures, were right to lead its abolition. Without them, we'd still have slavery.

The law the OP asked about, in its context, is quite fair. It is not an argument for whether or not we should own slaves today.

 

[durangodawood]

In your view, is God actively involved in the creation of these laws? What I'm getting at is some people believe these laws come from God in a way that is direct and the human authors are conduits of Gods will through divine inspiration (a rather Protestant view). It seems like you have a different, more nuanced view--can you elaborate?

I'm not a theist in any standard sense. I'm just saying that they enshrined the laws in powerful mythology to give them weight. I think making God and making the-Hebrew-people were the same project for them.

 

[Caliban]

That's changing the argument. The existence of the institution of slavery is another matter entirely - and the Christian abolitionists, motivated by their view of the New Testament Scriptures, were right to lead its abolition. Without them, we'd still have slavery.

The law the OP asked about, in its context, is quite fair. It is not an argument for whether or not we should own slaves today.

My response is only off topic if you do not consider the servant of Exodus 21 to be a slave. But of course the author begins the second verse by this statement: "When you buy a Hebrew slave..." Welt am I missing. I have been following the conversation on the topic of restitution, but I think that is morally abhorrent. I have said nothing about modern slavery. I am addressing the form of slavery in Exodus--there occurs more than one form as most people here know.

 

[Caliban]

I agree with you. Althought Hebraic laws in Exodus look archaic and cruel to us today, they were likely progressive for their time. I'm just happy I was born when I was.

 

[Sketcher]

My response is only off topic if you do not consider the servant of Exodus 21 to be a slave. But of course the author begins the second verse by this statement: "When you buy a Hebrew slave..." Welt am I missing. I have been following the conversation on the topic of restitution, but I think that is morally abhorrent. I have said nothing about modern slavery. I am addressing the form of slavery in Exodus--there occurs more than one form as most people here know.

Slavery among the Hebrews was a way to pay off debts. It was what it was.

Althought Hebraic laws in Exodus look archaic and cruel to us today, they were likely progressive for their time.

You are correct about that.

 

[coffee4u]

Okay, so I'm not going to pretend that I've thoroughly studied the book of exodus.

But I'm still curious. I'm going to make 2 assumptions here. Please let me know if any of these 2 are wrong.
1: The entire Bible is the word of God, the creator of everything.
2: God is purely good.

True & true.

Question: can you explain to me in what context the quote that beating a servant without the servant dying in 1 or 2 days without being punished for it is, or has ever been good in any situation?

Exodus 21:20-21


20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

God isn't saying beating slaves is good or right. No where in that passage is God saying their actions were justified, it simply tells us what was happening. The Bible isn't just about what God wants or desires its also about people and shows the good, the bad and the ugly of human nature. These verses are more for us to see just how deprived mankind is and why he desperately needed the saviour. Ever heard of the saying "There but for the grace of God go I" It's a recognition that others' misfortune or behaviour or thought patterns could be one's own. Unlike us these people did not have the Holy Spirit, they did not have God's commands upon their hearts, they did not have Jesus. We are blessed. They were basically barbarians, not cultured enlightened people. They probably would have beaten their slaves, wives and own mothers to death without batting an eye, so this rule was probably a radical idea.
The rule would have had the effect of making them think about what they were doing and saved slaves lives. After some years the idea that beating slaves to death was wrong would have gradually become apart of their society. Meanwhile no doubt all the other cultures around them were still beating slaves to death and the Hebrews had progressive rules for that time.

 

[Caliban]

God isn't saying beating slaves is good or right. No where in that passage is God saying their actions were justified, it simply tells us what was happening.

Are not laws implicitly telling of what is good and right. Laws are not promoted which encourage harm (not intentionally). Why would a morally upright God include laws to which he knew were bad or harmful to another human if he had the foresight to know how humans would one day apprehend slavery? Laws are not dispassionate as you suggest. Human laws may be--I'd agree with that. But you are suggesting that God is dispassionate about his laws and actively commands injunctions that are harmful to people. The entire institution of slavery is evil--in any form it takes--and everyone knows it. Pushing the date back a few thousand years does not make it more moral.

How could an all knowing God not know this? Can someone please answer this???