Exodus 21:20-21

Rick Larson · #1 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

[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.

I read this in my daily reading today. It's a hard one for me to grasp. Can anyone help me make some sense out of this, or point me in the direction of a helpful resource?

Rick Larson · #2 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 04:29 PM

Tough one, I know.

Blueridge Baptist · #3 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 04:36 PM

Blueridge Baptist · #4 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 04:41 PM

It is a tough one brother. Here is Matthew Henry's take on it:

IV. Care is here taken that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not ensue, v. 18, 19. He that did the hurt must be accountable for damages, and pay, not only for the cure, but for the loss of time, to which the Jews add that he must likewise give some recompence both for the pain and for the blemish, if there were any.

V. Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master’s correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, v. 20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master’s reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph. 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13–15.

satz · #5 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 04:58 PM

Here is how I have heard it explained:

First, the fact that a servant survived a day after the beating shows that the master was not doing it out of malicious spite, or the servant would not have survived so long. After that, the part that explains it is the last phrase 'for he is his property'. As a general rule, men do not destroy their own property. Because of this, it is assumed that the injury or death of the servant was an honest mistake made by the master in a legitimate act of discipline, for which God does not deem it necessary to punish.

moral necessity · #6 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Larson

Quote:

[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.

I read this in my daily reading today. It's a hard one for me to grasp. Can anyone help me make some sense out of this, or point me in the direction of a helpful resource?

What is it that makes it seem difficult to grasp or to make sense out of it? Is it offensive?

Rick Larson · #7 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moral necessity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Larson

Quote:

[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.

I read this in my daily reading today. It's a hard one for me to grasp. Can anyone help me make some sense out of this, or point me in the direction of a helpful resource?

What is it that makes it seem difficult to grasp or to make sense out of it? Is it offensive?

Yes, at first glance it appears rather harsh. I know there has to be more to it than meets the eye, which is why I'm asking about it.

Rick Larson · #8 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Here is how I have heard it explained:

First, the fact that a servant survived a day after the beating shows that the master was not doing it out of malicious spite, or the servant would not have survived so long. After that, the part that explains it is the last phrase 'for he is his property'. As a general rule, men do not destroy their own property. Because of this, it is assumed that the injury or death of the servant was an honest mistake made by the master in a legitimate act of discipline, for which God does not deem it necessary to punish.

Hey, that makes a little more sense. Thank you!