Had they chance ... ?

[Icthus]

My friend sees inconsistency in verses
21: "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
and
26: "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye."

He sees loosing the slave as vengeance.

I don't think that there's a contradiction. Verse 21 refers to normal punishment, which wouldn't leave any lasting damage. Being beaten with a rod was a common punishment in the ANE, and the point of this section is to establish that slaves should not be treated worse than free people, hence the punishment for killing a slave in the act of punishment. Note that this form of beating is not the often sadistic and unnecessary type we tend to associate with slavery nowadays. In context, beating is likely to refer to a form of punishment performed publicly. In an ANE society the shame of being punished in front of the community would greatly exceed the literal pain of being hit and was often employed against minor criminals. Note also that according to OT law a slave cannot be hit more than a set number of times, to prevent excessive punishment (the limit is the same for free people, which is yet another example of servants having equality as humans with free people). In the case of 26, 'vengeance' in the form of being forced to release the slave is justified as the owner has caused great or permanent harm, which is a crime.

[1over137]

My friend sees inconsistency in verses
21: "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
and
26: "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye."

He sees loosing the slave as vengeance.

I don't think that there's a contradiction. Verse 21 refers to normal punishment, which wouldn't leave any lasting damage. Being beaten with a rod was a common punishment in the ANE, and the point of this section is to establish that slaves should not be treated worse than free people, hence the punishment for killing a slave in the act of punishment. Note that this form of beating is not the often sadistic and unnecessary type we tend to associate with slavery nowadays. In context, beating is likely to refer to a form of punishment performed publicly. In an ANE society the shame of being punished in front of the community would greatly exceed the literal pain of being hit and was often employed against minor criminals. Note also that according to OT law a slave cannot be hit more than a set number of times, to prevent excessive punishment (the limit is the same for free people, which is yet another example of servants having equality as humans with free people). In the case of 26, 'vengeance' in the form of being forced to release the slave is justified as the owner has caused great or permanent harm, which is a crime.

Your last sentence indicates that releasment is vengeance but this is in contradiction with verse 21. When slave does not die, no vengeance shall be taken.

[Icthus]

My friend sees inconsistency in verses
21: "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
and
26: "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye."

He sees loosing the slave as vengeance.

I don't think that there's a contradiction. Verse 21 refers to normal punishment, which wouldn't leave any lasting damage. Being beaten with a rod was a common punishment in the ANE, and the point of this section is to establish that slaves should not be treated worse than free people, hence the punishment for killing a slave in the act of punishment. Note that this form of beating is not the often sadistic and unnecessary type we tend to associate with slavery nowadays. In context, beating is likely to refer to a form of punishment performed publicly. In an ANE society the shame of being punished in front of the community would greatly exceed the literal pain of being hit and was often employed against minor criminals. Note also that according to OT law a slave cannot be hit more than a set number of times, to prevent excessive punishment (the limit is the same for free people, which is yet another example of servants having equality as humans with free people). In the case of 26, 'vengeance' in the form of being forced to release the slave is justified as the owner has caused great or permanent harm, which is a crime.

Your last sentence indicates that releasment is vengeance but this is in contradiction with verse 21. When slave does not die, no vengeance shall be taken.

They aren't talking about quite the same thing. The law here assumes that the rest of the law is in place and is just talking about the specific case of almost killing a slave. 21 is talking about a beating that nearly results in death or appears at first. If the slave is beaten but doesn't die, then the master isn't guilty of what we might today call attempted murder. The fact that it mentions the servant 'getting up' shows that there is a question of wether this should be considered an attempt on his life. This verse only allows him to escape the punishment reserved for those who kill their servants. Though I'm not certain on the words used for vengeance in Hebrew, it is even possible that it is referring not to 'vengeance' as punishment but to 'vengeance' as in retribution from the family of the deceased, which isn't official punishment. In the ANE it was common for families to exact revenge for the killing of their members. Israel even had cities of refuge at which people who have accidentally killed someone could flee to and be protected. If this is how we are to understand it (and I can't guarantee that it is), then punishment for a crime and vengeance should be understood as two separate things. The exemption of the master from vengeance would make it fully illegal for the family of the almost deceased to seek retribution aside from legal compensation for any permanent injuries the victim suffered. I'm not sure.

[1over137]

Maybe this can help: http://concordances.org/hebrew/yukkam_5358.htm

[Icthus]

Maybe this can help: http://concordances.org/hebrew/yukkam_5358.htm

Thanks for that.

[1over137]

Words of my friend:
1. It's not prohibited to whip people to the blood, that's why in times of slavery not so long ago, people were whiped. Whipping your back does not break your teeth or destroy your eyes.
2. Furthemore, what when slave died in 7 days? Nothing probably.

[Icthus]

Words of my friend:
1. It's not prohibited to whip people to the blood, that's why in times of slavery not so long ago, people were whiped. Whipping your back does not break your teeth or destroy your eyes.
2. Furthemore, what when slave died in 7 days? Nothing probably.

I'm not quite sure what your friend means by number 2, but with number 1 he/she has made at least one mistake that I can see. The teeth and eyes are not the only thing covered by this law. It would apply to any serious, permanent, or debilitating injury. The use of teeth and eyes are likely just an example. After all, when Hammurabi's code says "an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth" it certainly doesn't mean to apply its logic of retribution to eyes and teeth only. It simply means that a loss will be repaid in kind, no matter what it is. A severe beating (as any that surpasses the maximum punishment set by the OT law could be), might leave the recipient with any or all of a number of lasting problems which would fall under verses 26 and 27. Even if all that is meant is the eyes and teeth, this is still a provision to protect the slave's honor, as it would be shameful to be struck in the face in the ANE. The Israelites would have understood this.

The fact that 'in times of slavery not so long ago' people were furiously beaten using the OT as justification doesn't matter (a minor point would be that in Israel they wouldn't use whips but rods, which wouldn't be nearly as lasting, painful, or bloody). God clearly states in Leviticus 25 that one must not treat servants ruthlessly and that they should be treated as hired help. If your friend wishes to complain about Exodus 21. 20-21, he/she should note that it directly follows instructions on what to do if two free men fight and one is injured but not killed. The punishment is the same as it is for a master and servant, except that in the case of a free person the victim must be compensated for time and healed, something that in the case of a master and servant would be taken care of already since the master is required by law to take care of his servants and since the servant's time belongs to him.

If by point 2 your friend means to suggest that if the servant died after seven days nothing would happen, he/she is certainly wrong. The punishment for killing another human being (unless it is entirely accidental) is execution. This applies wether the victim is male or female, an Israelite or a foreigner, a slave or a slave owner. If local authorities were convinced that a death occurred because of a beating a week or more ago, it would be no different than the case of a bandit who stole a man's supplies in the middle of the desert, causing him to die several days later from a lack of water.

Let us remember one more thing. Such beatings as mentioned here were probably quite uncommon (as were rapes as we discussed earlier since families went to great lengths to protect their female members). This was not American chattel slavery. Slavery as we understand it today is a cruel system that perpetuates and gradually increases its own atrocious nature. It was damaging not only to the slaves themselves, but to their masters. It was a system that often turned slave owners into immoral beasts. White slaveholders were separated from their slaves not only spatially and racially, but culturally as well. It is only natural that slave owners and drivers became brutal and merciless in such a system. Not only did their slaves not look like them, they doubtless SEEMED inferior. Slavery in America reinforced its own stereotypes of black slaves as unintelligent, cowering, wild brutes by forcing them to remain ignorant (it was illegal to teach a slave to read) and shaping them from the moment they were born into fearful, servile chattel. To many slave owners, it doubtless APPEARED that slaves were less than human because they had been stripped of any chance to better themselves, robbed of their hopes, and beaten into a generally defeated and worn population, having their humanity snatched away from them by the institution of slavery. Their ability to rise from such a low point in human history is a testament to the strength of their spirit. But this institution was NOT what was in place in Israel. The slaves of the Israelites were mostly Israelites, and even foreigners didn't have to worry because slavery was not about race at this time. Most slaves were not employed in agricultural labor, acting as house servants and actually residing among their master's family members. Quite regularly, the servants employed by a household would be drawn from their own neighbors, families they associated with on a semi regular basis. Servants attended festivals and rituals with their employers, were taken care of and provided for, and could even marry into the family they worked for. Does your friend think that many masters would savage such servants--people whose relatives they might very well know, who eat at the table with their sons and daughters, who are most likely fellow Israelites and who, because they must be released after seven years, may very well one day be neighbors or in laws that they'd need to rely on? I doubt it. They'd be, for the most part, respectful of their servant's rights, and that doesn't even take into account God's orders for them to do so

[Zionist]

@1over137
so when you answered the original set of questions he just asks more right? well i will tell you this now i would just stop answering his questions because he has no good intent on asking questions. he is not asking to genuinely learn he's asking until you can't answer something so he can say he has proved he's right. so basically he's just going to continue asking questions and not really consider any answers he receives. he has already made up his mind so i would just leave it at that and just pray for him and whatever he does ask just quote him these bible verses Matthew 7: 7-8 1st Thessalonians 5: 21.

[1over137]

@1over137
so when you answered the original set of questions he just asks more right? well i will tell you this now i would just stop answering his questions because he has no good intent on asking questions. he is not asking to genuinely learn he's asking until you can't answer something so he can say he has proved he's right. so basically he's just going to continue asking questions and not really consider any answers he receives. he has already made up his mind so i would just leave it at that and just pray for him and whatever he does ask just quote him these bible verses Matthew 7: 7-8 1st Thessalonians 5: 21.

I showed him your post and he said that it is typical reaction. He said more but I am not going to write it here.
I will continue trying to answer his questions. And maybe I will reconsider whether to post his questions on this forum.

[RickD]

Hana, maybe you could invite your friend to look at the home site. I'm sure he can search there, and maybe the answers to some of his questions are there.

[PaulSacramento]

Hana, maybe you could invite your friend to look at the home site. I'm sure he can search there, and maybe the answers to some of his questions are there.

I doubt it because it seems he has already made up his mind.
The net is full of information, this we know and if one wants to understand the OT texts and laws, there are plenty of sites that can explain them in their correct historical context and correct theological context.
He seems to have found the site(s) that "explain" them in their "skeptics-view context" and I wonder why he has NOT looked at the other sites that would counter those arguments.