Posts
Exodus 21-22
God sits Moses down and starts laying down the law - Literally.
The laws start off kind of shaky, dealing with slavery and the treatment of women as property.
We then get into the societal laws dealing with crime and punishment. God is very specific and thorough.
Everything here (except for the slavery and women as property) seems like it could have evolved naturally as man started to form communities and had to learn to live together.
Exodus 22:29 gets back to the worshipping of God. I'm curious about this little bit;
"Thou shalt not delay [to offer] the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."
Is God asking for a sacrifice of the first born males? I'm sure he's not but that's how it's written.
21-23 is the Covenant Code, old E-related law.
ReplyDeleteThe reference to "Hebrew" slave is interesting. Compare it to Deuteronomy 15:12. Did the Israelites hold each other as slaves? What was the original meaning of "Hebrew"? In a lot of contexts it doesn't appear to mean the same thing as "Israelite", but sometimes it does.
Overall this law is a very mixed bag. 22:18 (burn the witch!) is despicable; 22:21 starts off nice (be nice to foreigners!) but then turns ugly (or god will KILL YOU WITH A SWORD).
22:25, God takes a stand against payday loans.
Notice at 22:18 the law switches gears; prior to that point it's all situational when/if instructions. After 22:18, it's YOU SHALT NOTs.
All the laws are obviously tailored to an agrarian society and were no doubt crafted by the Israelites living in Canaan.
22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
ReplyDeleteWhat gods? It sounds like the Israelite's god wants all the other gods to be respected, just not worshipped.
As a former litigator, I love Chapters 21 and 22. Tort law, anyone?
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting (not from a lawyerly perspective) that "gods" is plural in 22:28. Apparently, reviling *any* gods, not just This One, is right out. ...If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all?
Although completely archaic to us, I appreciate the implied cultural struggle with owning another sentient being. It's like the knew it was wrong (that's why certain escape clauses), but their still property so you should make a profit. Reminds me of the parts of the constitution (3/5ths apportionment for slaves). Although I can sense the struggle, it no way justifies slavery to me.
ReplyDeleteI believe other historical cultures have had different rules for slaves of the same heritage as the masters. The only example that comes to mind is the Catholic rule that Christians can't keep other Christians as slaves
This is OT but I thought I'd throw it out there if anyone's interested: I just found Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" as a free ebook at archive.org:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.archive.org/details/WhoWroteTheBible_167
Worth a read if you want an introduction to the evil lie that is the documentary hypothesis.
@betterthanesdras
ReplyDeleteWow! Thanks for the link! I won't be getting much done today, I can tell already.
Heh, I am reading parts of it from an NIV children's Bible that my church gave when I was 8 years old (I like to compare NIV with KJV).
ReplyDeleteFor chapter 21, it has a cute little section called "Let's live it!" And it says that if you have a dog that is aggressive, you should tie it up so it doesn't bite people. Gee, do I really need an entire passage about stoning killer bulls to death to figure that one out? I know it's intended for kids to read it, but really?
@Chasia - I'm with you. Not justified at all and the whole section made me rather ill. So many weird rules, none of which seem like they come from a loving deity.
ReplyDeleteI was also puzzled by 22:9 - "...the case of both parties shall come before God. The one whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor." So they are all going to talk to God face to face? Didn't God just tell Moses they can't do this? But if not, then how do they decide who was condemned? The one something bad happens to first?
You know what? I lied. I'm puzzled by all of it.
@Susan
ReplyDeleteCan you please provide me a definition of "loving" and apply it to God? I have asked for this question of others, yet i have not gotten an answer. I also want to mention that God is also Holy (Leviticus 11:45) and Just (Deuteronomy 32:4) ( I keep it in Moses writings :-D). I am not setting some trap, but genuinely want to know why people think God is only loving and never mention Holy and Just. Maybe it's from all those snake oil salesmen called preachers that stand on their platform with their creepy smile and saying "God loves you and wants you to be rich" :-D "That's all I have to say about that."
In 22:9 "So they are all going to talk to God face to face? Didn't God just tell Moses they can't do this? But if not, then how do they decide who was condemned? The one something bad happens to first?"
I am not sure what text you are reading from, but in the KJV it does not say before God. I checked the NIV i have and it did not say that as well. So now i am really interested in what version you are using. I have put the KJV here for reference.
"For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
@Edward & Susan
ReplyDeleteChecking on Biblios, several versions of the bible do say "come before god", the New Living Translation, the English Standard Version, the American Standard Version and the English Revised Version. I don't know what older Greek or Hebrew texts said that led to this disparity among translations though.
@Barbara,
ReplyDeleteThere are two ways i see this :
1. Who this is written to and when. These people just came out of Egypt where they thought Pharaoh was a demi-god, so the top authority in their mind is a god, but not the God.
2. The judges and magistrates have a power like God, they can give and take. Not just material items but life as well as freedom.
(MHC)
A law against the contempt of authority ( 28): Thou shalt not revile the gods, that is, the judges and magistrates, for their executing these laws; they must do their duty, whoever suffer by it. Magistrates ought not to fear the reproach of men, nor their revilings, but to despise them as long as they keep a good conscience; but those that do revile them for their being a terror to evil works and workers reflect upon God himself, and will have a great deal to answer for another day. We find those under a black character, and a heavy doom, that despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities, Jude 8. Princes and magistrates are our fathers, whom the fifth commandment obliges us to honour and forbids us to revile. St. Paul applies this law to himself, and owns that he ought not to speak evil of the ruler of his people; no, not though the ruler was then his most unrighteous persecutor, Acts 23:5; see Ecclesiastes 10:20.
@David,
ReplyDeleteThat is because these translations come from a corrupt text of the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic manuscripts of scripture. That discussion is outside of the scope of this project, yet if you want to know more i can take this topic to a different forum.
Now David that you have pointed that out explains why so many people are confused.
I did a study of Bible versions but it focused on KJV and NIV mostly sometimes NKJV. There are over 300 different translations (perversions) of the Bible.
Thanks for that info
@David - thanks for checking on the versions. Coming before judges makes much more sense. It is interesting that with so many translations and so much room for error, people can still say with such certainty that thus and such is the word of God. Worrisome.
ReplyDelete@Edward - point taken about the term loving, although everything I ever hear about the good news is about God's love. Do you think God has a different definition of loving than, for example, I do as a parent? I would also like to point out that setting down such specific rules for slavery (slavery! Weren't they just slaves themselves?) seems neither holy nor just. Up to this point in the text, God has come across rather capricious and willful. And again, obsessed with minutiae.
@Susan
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points
"although everything I ever hear about the good news is about God's love."
Yes God is love, (Romans 5:8) and that is what people want to talk about. Think of it as the politically correct gospel. The way to get someone to throw up their defences is to tell them that they are a wicked sinner and the Holy and Just God is going to visit them in the day of His wrath, and if they don't repent they will be gravely punished. Yet He loves you and has made a way for you to find forgiveness, that way is Jesus Christ.
Won't win to many listeners with lines like that, yet it's the truth. After the first part they are not listening to the last, and are ready to tear you head off.
Now they go on (The PC gospel person that is) about how God is love, and think since they got you they better not mention or teach you about the Holy and Just part, because it will scare you off. Now those are just my thoughts. It's really hard to put this in writing because the tone you could take might not be the one that i am using while i type this. So with that in mind this is written with a nice laid back casual speaking pace. I won't need oxygen after i am done. :-D From a friend that cares and is concerned about another's safety.
"Do you think God has a different definition of loving than, for example, I do as a parent?"
Yes i do think He does, and different from my definition of love as well. That was now said without knowing what your definition is, yet i would be confident that it would be different.
If God is who scripture records He is, then what He does may not look like love, yet we must remember He has an eternal perspective on things. (Isaiah 46:10, Revelation 1:8) So allowing His son or daughter to go through some very tough times may look bad from the perspective of our temporal view, yet from the eternal, One would see the events that would come upon that child and know that this is going to make them stronger for that, and I will allow it for their good in the future.
"I would also like to point out that setting down such specific rules for slavery (slavery! Weren't they just slaves themselves?) seems neither holy nor just."
1. These "servants" were to be set free after 6 years of service. 21:2 These are not slaves. I am, i think 3 generations away from slaves, this is not slavery. We also have the restrictions on how they are to treat their servants. 21:20,26,27 The reason for some of the harsh language is because of 22:2,3. They don't put the person in prison to be a burden on all the people, but he is sold into servitude. That i feel is why you have the rod in 21:20,21. Remember the heart of man it is desperately wicked. (Jeremiah 17:9) A thief is not going to like to work off the penalty of his sin.
I will agree with you viewing this with the understanding of slavery that we have in our recent past and today (because it still goes on, even here in the US) i would agree with you it's neither holy nor just. Yet viewing it in the context as servants that are set free after 6 years and restrictions on treatment it is very just.
@Edward
ReplyDelete" Yet viewing it in the context as servants that are set free after 6 years and restrictions on treatment it is very just."
I disagree. It is not just, nor moral, nor holy. It is slavery. And sexist slavery at that.
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
The 'set free after 6 year' applies only to men and I would also like to point out that these rules seem to apply only to Hebrew slaves. If a foreigner is a slave, he/she is property in perpetuity - as are their offspring. Actually ALL of a slaves offspring are the property of the slave owner (Exodus 21:4)
I've heard the argument that biblical slavery wasn't like the slavery of the 19th century. I agree. I would guess it was far worse. (Exodus 21:20-21 is a nice example of how 'just' this system was)
In my opinion the bible has no moral credibility on the issue of slavery and never will.
@Edward: I don't see how you can justify slavery as it is presented to us in Exodus. We are given very clear instructions on how to sell our daughters into slavery, either as maidservants or wives. What is "just" about that?
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be very clear evidence that the Bible shows us not an eternal and unchanging moral code set down by God, but rather the morals of the society at that time, morals that have not kept pace with evolving human society.
This seems to be very clear evidence that the Bible shows us not an eternal and unchanging moral code set down by God, but rather the morals of the society at that time, morals that have not kept pace with evolving human society.
ReplyDeleteAnd you can actually *see* this morality evolve. The Covenant code was reworked and expanded by later generations; we'll see a new version in Deuteronomy (Greek for "2nd Law" for this reason).
@David && @Kelly
ReplyDeleteCan you show me in the KJV where it uses the word slavery or slave? The word servant is used here and rightfully so.
It would be slavery if they could never get from under the yoke of their master, however they can, either at the 7 year, or the year of jubile. (Leviticus 25:54). He could also be redeemed in those years. What says he could not redeem his wife? The master paid a price for her, so therefore if he were to just let the servants wife go with him the master would take the loss. So the servant could work for more years to redeem his wife. Jacob did this for Rachel (Genesis 29:18).
This is not something that God is doing, it is something He is putting restrictions on. These people were sold by their parents through extreme poverty, or were sold by the court of judgement for some crime committed.
"I would guess it was far worse. (Exodus 21:20-21 is a nice example of how 'just' this system was)" &&
"morals that have not kept pace with evolving human society."
really? You think things are so great today and man's morals are better? I could be reading that the wrong way.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteLet me be clear. Yes - I think our morality on this topic is better today. Far, far better in fact. The greek word 'doulos' is used hundreds of times in the bible. Doulos was the word for slave or bondsman, bondswoman, etc. Susbtituting the word 'servant' doesn't mean slavery is not what is being discussed. It is clearly what is being discussed here. Many bible translations use the word 'slave'.
Exodus 21 is clear that these are instructions from god. These instructions are also clearly applied to Hebrew slaves, not all slaves.
Slaver is morally wrong. It always was. the biblical god seems wholly unaware of this fact.
@David,
ReplyDelete"...I think our morality..."
Who is "our"? There is still slavery today, it is still a problem in the world. I believe that we both agree that slavery is wrong. However you want to say this is slavery and i say it's not. Would a slave owner ever let a slave go? I would say no, (some think the civil war was over this issue alone), yet they are to let the servant go in the 7th year. Would that fit the behavior of a master/slave? I would again say no.
You say this is only for the Hebrews, yes this passage only mentions the Hebrews, now does anywhere in the rest of the law expand on this? Yes it does and we can find the answer in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. (Exodus 12:49;Leviticus 24:22;Numbers 15:16,19) One law for both the homeborn (one of your own country) and stranger mentioned in these passages, yet how does this apply to the non-Hebrew people? Because in Leviticus 19:33,34 God tells them don't vex the stranger, the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.
(Deuteronomy 31:12 also says gather the people, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:)
These were servants like the manager/employee working environment we have today. Read how it is recorded of Abraham's servant in Genesis 24:2, his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had. So this servant takes 10 camels of his master (v. 9) and in (v. 32) we read that some men went with him. So if you were a slave why not run? If you were treated as a slave you would want your freedom, right? And if he was the only loyal one why would the others not overpower him and try to escape, the man would have to sleep, no? Granted they could all be loyal and enjoy slavery. And this teaching of slavery would be very odd seeing that the Hebrews themselves were held in a slavery state in Egypt. They were the strangers being held against their will. Yet now they can turn around and do the same unto others? I think not.
"It is clearly what is being discussed here. Many bible translations use the word 'slave'."
Yes many do, and i feel, through personal study, there are many corrupt versions of the Bible. People want it to say what they want: eisegeses', as you probably feel i do, however if we really read it to understand what it does teach: exegesis, we will get the correct answer.
I am sorry for the late post, i got tied up last night and did not see your post until the night before right before i was going to bed.
@Edward
ReplyDelete"Yet they are to let the servant go in the 7th year. Would that fit the behavior of a master/slave? I would again say no. "
Again, the text applies this to male, Hebrew slaves only. You've glossed over the fact that women/children are not included in this freedom clause.
"These were servants like the manager/employee working environment we have today. "
I disagree. The scriptures you quoted all mention 'strangers' (greek - xenos), not 'servant' or slave (greek - doulos). You are comparing apples and oranges here.
"They were the strangers being held against their will. Yet now they can turn around and do the same unto others? I think not."
Again I disagree. Abused children often become abusive parents themselves. One would hope that this wouldn't be the case, but unfortunately, it often is. Man's inhumanity towards man and all that.
I believe that these texts were written by men, nothing more. They didn't criticize the institution of slavery because it was part of the social and economic fabric of their culture. They saw nothing wrong with it. An omniscient god surely would have known better, but it seems to me, so far, he didn't.
@David
ReplyDelete"Again, the text applies this to male, Hebrew slaves only."
Sorry i should have pointed this one out.
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 Women get to go free as well. This also adds more information to the law found on Exodus 21
"The scriptures you quoted all mention 'strangers' (greek - xenos), not 'servant' or slave (greek - doulos)." Where are you getting greek where this should be in Hebrew? but anyway,
Deuteronomy 24:14 This does make it sound like the stranger can be a hired servant as well. So no i am not "comparing apples and oranges". Correct me if i am reading this wrong.
"Abused children often become abusive parents themselves."
Yes i agree on that, however from the text they are clearly warned against doing such.
Now here is something that does help us see the difference, there is a hired servant, then a bondservant. Bondservant sounds like slave to me.
Leviticus 25:39-46. Now that i would agree sounds like slaves, they are not allowed to go free (might in the jubilee year?). From reading in other places this sounds like captives taken in war.
(MHC)
That he should not serve as a bond-servant (v.39), nor be sold with the sale of a bondman (v. 42); that is, "it must not be looked upon that his master that bought him had as absolute a property in him as in a captive taken in war, that might be used, sold, and bequeathed, at pleasure, as much as a man's cattle; no, he shall serve thee as a hired servant, whom the master has the use of only, but not a despotic power over."...
It intimates that none shall have the benefit of the gospel jubilee but those only that are Israelites indeed, and the children of Abraham by faith: as for those that continue heathenish, they continue bondmen.
Wow we would need a lawyer for this stuff. :-D
"Man's inhumanity towards man and all that."
I agree with you there, can i ask who sets the moral standard?
@Edward
ReplyDelete"Deuteronomy 15:12-18 Women get to go free as well. This also adds more information to the law found on Exodus 21"
Thanks for pointing that out. It does, however, still only apply to Hebrew slaves. Foreigners, strangers, etc, remain in servitude for life it seems. This is still slavery in my book.
"... can i ask who sets the moral standard?"
Ahh - the argument from morality. I've been done that road before, I'm sure you have as well. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one!
@David
ReplyDeleteI want to understand this. In Exodus 12:49;Leviticus 24:22;Numbers 15:16,19 we are told that there is (Exodus 12:49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Then in Leviticus 19:33,34
"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."
So using the above this is the scenario i think about.
I am a stranger to your country. I am poor and need a job, i decided because it's the way things are done, that hey i am going to work for David as a hired servant. I want to get a start in your country because i hear it's the place to be. So i ask you to hire me and i will tend your flocks and clean up the dung. You say sure, we agree on the terms 6 years and in the seventh i go free. But after the handshake you say i am now your slave. Wait what? I just read your law, it should be the same for me as with the natural born citizen, so after the agreed time i should be let go, i did not just agree to make myself a bond servant. However the way you see it i am a slave now because i am not a Hebrew and will never be able to be let go. I guess that is why we go before the judges (Exodus 21:6). Can i provide my own council? :-D
"Ahh - the argument from morality. I've been done that road before, I'm sure you have as well. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one!"
ReplyDeleteI cannot disagree on that because you never gave me an answer. :-P
However i will say i have been over that question myself many times. Who provides the morality my wife, me or God? I would really like to place it myself, yet i don't.... well not always. ;-) I don't take my wife's either, unless it agrees with God. It is interesting though how we think. I don't know if you have experienced this or not, it's the feeling when you see or hear something that "that is wrong!". Why? Why is that wrong? Now however sometimes we are guilty of the same behaviour, say speeding. That is if you have a car, i will take it you do. So your friend Ted was speeding and got a ticket, we know it's wrong to speed, we do have speed limits, yet we don't feel so convicted about it, because we do the same thing. I hope your not a state trooper somewhere. :-D It's like the things we are guilty of we are easier to dismiss and see no problem with it or play it off as not such a big deal, thinking there are worse things that person could have done. Yet someone that does not have that behaviour does not have a lax attitude about it.
So before our conscious is seared with a hot iron and we view specific things as being wrong, how do we know they are wrong? For what bases can we say what is right or wrong? If there is no God then isn't everything just a bunch of gasses and chemicals reacting? By what basis can we view anything as being right or wrong? Just by the chemical reactions in our head? I do believe completely that the God spoke of in the Bible is the only true God, if the God of the Bible does not exist then nothing can be known. I know how can i be so dumb as to think that. Because i am thinking about it, and that's why i enjoy talking and writing to people that don't believe it. The reason we cannot know anything is because there would be no basis for truth. If the universe came about by random chance, and we are all here by random processes, then what's to say the laws that we observe today will be the same tomorrow? We could just be existing between processes. (Who is going to tell nothing that yes this works? And seeing how much we like to rail God on designing things wrong, it's not totally right is it?) I believe the laws are the same because God upholds them and by Him do all things consist. (Hebrews 1:3;Colossians 1:17)
Now this is why i really look for a anti-theist view. They may have an answer to my questions and show me something i have been missing. I appreciate yours and others time in reading and replying to my posts. Thanks again David.