This is the verse that critics point to that show the Bible, Christianity, and God allows for, or even promotes, the ownership of one human being by another. Thus proving the utter immorality of the Bible, Christianity, and God.
The Hebrew word translated "property means “silver” or “money.” [it's rendered "money" in some translations] Of course, the person wasn’t literally made of “silver” or “money.” Rather, because the person was paying off their debt, they were equivocated with money, because they financially owed their employer.
For example, let's say one had a debt of X amount, and sold themselves into indentured servitude, that would take 2 years to pay off. The employer would have paid off that debt and the 2 years would be needed to repay that debt in addition to the room/board. This person is his money since he has a financial interest in him and would suffer if the 2 years work was not done.
So it doesn't look like we are talking about one human being as the literal property of another.
Here is the conundrum with the property understanding
If these people were considered property and could treat them as he pleased, then why is the owner punished for too harsh a beating?
After all, there would be no reason to punish an owner for taking the servant’s life if the servant was his own “property.” If you were to take a chain saw to your dining room table, no one could say you can't do that or that someone else must be compensated for it. [other than your spouse, but that's a different story]
Yet, owners were punished for killing their servants: “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished” (v.20). Later in the passage, the slave masters were punished for brutality—such as knocking out a tooth or harming an eye (see vv. 26-27), which was unknown in the ancient Near East.
“These laws are unprecedented in the ancient world where a master could treat his slave as he pleased.” [Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Exodus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: p433.]
The context shows that the servant was not considered mere property (i.e. chattel slavery).
The mention of recovering after “a day or two” relates to the context of two men fighting (vv.18-19). If one man was beaten to the point of missing time from work, then the offender needed to “pay for his loss of time” (v.19). But what should an owner do with a servant if they get into a fight? Is the owner supposed to pay for his time off? No.
The mention of recovering after “a day or two” relates to the context of two men fighting (vv.18-19). If one man was beaten to the point of missing time from work, then the offender needed to “pay for his loss of time” (v.19). But what should an owner do with a servant if they get into a fight? Is the owner supposed to pay for his time off? No.
The indentured servant already owed the man money through the form of work. This is why the law states that “he is his property.” Stuart writes, “-*There was, in other words, no point in asking the servant’s boss to compensate himself for the loss of his own servant’s labor. If the servant had been too severely punished, however, so that the servant took more than a couple of days to recover completely or was permanently injured, some combination of the terms of the prior law (vv. 18-19) and the law in vv. 26-27 would be used to make sure the employer did not get off without penalty*. [Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary, p490-491.]
Objection: The verse says "for he is his property"! It's right there in the text! You are twisting words.
Reply: My mother used to say, "it's raining cats and dogs". Yet no cat or dog fell from the sky. Why, because it's a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, refers to one thing by mentioning another. We are supposed to take metaphors literally.
No comments:
Post a Comment