I don't get it .

[Guest HIS girl]

I don't understand this..I have been reading Exodus and have struggled with these -

Exodus 21 v20-21

"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.

Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."

and verse 27

"And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth."

I don't really understand these verses.

In my NKJ Bible, it didn't have any notes for verse 20 and 21 but for verse 27 it said - Freedom was the payment for personal injury to a servant.

Is verse 20 and 21 implying that the servant was in the wrong therefore the beating was his due punishment?

Please let the answers be edifying .

[Amaan]

I don't understand this..I have been reading Exodus and have struggled with these -

Exodus 21 v20-21

"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.

Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."

and verse 27

"And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth."

I don't really understand these verses.

In my NKJ Bible, it didn't have any notes for verse 20 and 21 but for verse 27 it said - Freedom was the payment for personal injury to a servant.

Is verse 20 and 21 implying that the servant was in the wrong therefore the beating was his due punishment?

Please let the answers be edifying .

When Israel in the ancient days was ruled by the Patriarchs, laws and cruel policies were set into place to ensure that God would be born as Jesus. God allowed these sort of things not as punishment, but as an insurance policy that Jesus could do away with all such ugly things. The ends once justified the means. During these days, the ends do not justify the means... These cruel policies, put into effect were about making war on the enemies of Israel and wiping off threats to the blood line of Jesus.

However, the Bible does not say what the after life of those who own and mistreat their slaves is. It does, however, have the story of Lazarus and the rich man. We can assume that the poor man was similar to the slave while the rich man was the abuser of the slave. Now, there really is no threat to the blood line of Jesus. Jesus is around already, so there is no excuse, even legalisticaly, to abuse anyone.

[Guest HIS girl]

My immediate thought was v 21 was a lot more harsh than v 27.

That is why I need clarification of the verses.

[Guest HIS girl]

When Israel in the ancient days was ruled by the Patriarchs, laws and cruel policies were set into place to ensure that God would be born as Jesus. God allowed these sort of things not as punishment, but as an insurance policy that Jesus could do away with all such ugly things. The ends once justified the means. During these days, the ends do not justify the means... These cruel policies, put into effect were about making war on the enemies of Israel and wiping off threats to the blood line of Jesus.

However, the Bible does not say what the after life of those who own and mistreat their slaves is. It does, however, have the story of Lazarus and the rich man. We can assume that the poor man was similar to the slave while the rich man was the abuser of the slave. Now, there really is no threat to the blood line of Jesus. Jesus is around already, so there is no excuse, even legalisticaly, to abuse anyone.

Can you explain what you mean differently? I don't really get what you mean.

[Amaan]

When Israel in the ancient days was ruled by the Patriarchs, laws and cruel policies were set into place to ensure that God would be born as Jesus. God allowed these sort of things not as punishment, but as an insurance policy that Jesus could do away with all such ugly things. The ends once justified the means. During these days, the ends do not justify the means... These cruel policies, put into effect were about making war on the enemies of Israel and wiping off threats to the blood line of Jesus.

However, the Bible does not say what the after life of those who own and mistreat their slaves is. It does, however, have the story of Lazarus and the rich man. We can assume that the poor man was similar to the slave while the rich man was the abuser of the slave. Now, there really is no threat to the blood line of Jesus. Jesus is around already, so there is no excuse, even legalisticaly, to abuse anyone.

Can you explain what you mean differently? I don't really get what you mean.

God was sterner and more harsh with humanity back then. He had a plan that Jesus would come to the Earth in a certain time of his choosing. All the conditions had to be right in order to be sure that Israel survived. With no Israelites/Jews, there would be no Jesus... so God used temporary means of cruelty to ensure that Jesus could die on the Cross, and do away with all of the previously necessary ugliness.

[Guest HIS girl]

When Israel in the ancient days was ruled by the Patriarchs, laws and cruel policies were set into place to ensure that God would be born as Jesus. God allowed these sort of things not as punishment, but as an insurance policy that Jesus could do away with all such ugly things. The ends once justified the means. During these days, the ends do not justify the means... These cruel policies, put into effect were about making war on the enemies of Israel and wiping off threats to the blood line of Jesus.

However, the Bible does not say what the after life of those who own and mistreat their slaves is. It does, however, have the story of Lazarus and the rich man. We can assume that the poor man was similar to the slave while the rich man was the abuser of the slave. Now, there really is no threat to the blood line of Jesus. Jesus is around already, so there is no excuse, even legalisticaly, to abuse anyone.

Can you explain what you mean differently? I don't really get what you mean.

God was sterner and more harsh with humanity back then. He had a plan that Jesus would come to the Earth in a certain time of his choosing. All the conditions had to be right in order to be sure that Israel survived. With no Israelites/Jews, there would be no Jesus... so God used temporary means of cruelty to ensure that Jesus could die on the Cross, and do away with all of the previously necessary ugliness.

Is that your opinion of the OT?

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't understand this..I have been reading Exodus and have struggled with these -

Exodus 21 v20-21

"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.

Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."

and verse 27

"And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth."

I don't really understand these verses.

In my NKJ Bible, it didn't have any notes for verse 20 and 21 but for verse 27 it said - Freedom was the payment for personal injury to a servant.

Is verse 20 and 21 implying that the servant was in the wrong therefore the beating was his due punishment?

Please let the answers be edifying .

What you have here are laws pertaining to the mistreatment of foreign slaves.

Basically, it is saying that if the master is beating a servant and ends up beating him/her to death, the master will be put to death, presumably because he has committed murder.

However if the servant survives the beating and dies days later it might have been the result of something else, and not the beating and so the master is not put to death, but he loses the servant anyway, as we see in v. 27.

If the beating results in a personal injury, the servant goes free. There were other laws put forth as well, that protected servants from mistreatment.

[Guest HIS girl]

So if the servant survived the beating, then all is well and the owner is not charged with anything? That is within the rights of the owner?

Is that correct?

[irishcowboy]

I don't understand this..I have been reading Exodus and have struggled with these -

Exodus 21 v20-21

"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.

Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."

and verse 27

"And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth."

I don't really understand these verses.

In my NKJ Bible, it didn't have any notes for verse 20 and 21 but for verse 27 it said - Freedom was the payment for personal injury to a servant.

Is verse 20 and 21 implying that the servant was in the wrong therefore the beating was his due punishment?

Please let the answers be edifying .

God has set up rules so that we are held responsible for our actions, even out actions of that which "belongs" to us....

it is not wrong to punish or even discipline our family or servants, but we are to do so with out sinning, to refrain from EXCESS beating.....

even in Sing A Pore when they CANE some one, they pad certain parts of the body so that no harm comes to a vital organ...

God gave us rules to govern our actions, right, wrong and indifferent......

if the servant was not doing as the owner wanted the servant to do, it is the owners right to punish the servant.....WITH IN REASON......

if you do not do as your boss says, it is your bosses right to FIRE you..... (with in legal bounds.).... in other words, if the boss says you are to sweep the floor every day at a certain time, and you dont, that would be grounds for punishment.... which could be docking of pay to being suspended for a certain time frame, to being fired..... most companies have these rules and regulations written down and usually have them posted at places through out the plant/office and are usually gone over during indoc.

The Word of God tells us how to conduct ourselves.....

if you were my servant, and you were not doing as you were suppose to but yet not breaking the law (either of us) I would have the right to (the word beat is not what i want to use) whip you, but.....BUT..... the punishment needs to match the offense.....

in some countries, they still hold public executions, as well as other means of punishment for crimes... such as a thief will have their right hand cut off.... very disgraceful.... another might have the tongue cut out for an offense of sorts.....

some places, being drunk in public a person is taken to the desert (a set number of miles) and dropped off with out food or water.....

even with our servants, we are responsible for our actions.....

mike

[kross]

I don't understand this..I have been reading Exodus and have struggled with these -

Exodus 21 v20-21

"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.

Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."

and verse 27

"And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth."

I don't really understand these verses.

In my NKJ Bible, it didn't have any notes for verse 20 and 21 but for verse 27 it said - Freedom was the payment for personal injury to a servant.

Is verse 20 and 21 implying that the servant was in the wrong therefore the beating was his due punishment?

Please let the answers be edifying .

Hi HIS Girl.

Just to put you more on track with the heart and nature of GOD, this is an issue of heart and intent. IF a man beat his servant to death, it would indicate that it was his intent to do so. If the servant dies a couple of days after a beating, he was punished by his owner who had no intent to kill him.