by jimwalton » Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:46 pm
Yeah, I prefer to get my research from the scholars and not from the Internet or from either apologetic or non-apologetic sources. I get as straight to the original sources as possible.
Exodus 21.4: When a free man gave a wife to another man who owed him something, certain cultural conditions applied to that marriage. The man who was working off a debt (one who worked as an employee, or as a servant, even though their culture used the term "slave") was a debt-slave, working off his debt to a person with labor. We do the same thing today, and we call it "employment." They didn't have such a word, and used the word "slave." It meant something completely different than "slave" means in our ears today. Typically, the debt-servant could take the wife, and any children born to them, only by satisfying certain requirements. These were cultural patterns, not biblically-commanded ones.
As evidence I offer the record of a contract from the city of Emar (probably 13th c. BC). The debt-servant in this case may take take his wife and children with him when he leaves the service of his creditor, but only if he abides by the basic agreement set forth in the contract. When this document addresses the possibility that the debt-servant might renege on his commitment to abide by the contract, then the pledge "will have no claim to his wife and children." This law in Exodus may be establishing what was standard procedure in these types of situations; modifications were probably allowed if clearly established in a contractual agreement. Remember, it's casuistic law, not commandments.
A bride in this situation was probably also part of a debt-service contract, and thus she and her family also had financial obligations to the "master." The free person (the person who had finished working off his debt and was married to the lady who still had debt) had three options in that culture:
1\. Wait for his wife and kids to finish their term of service while he worked elsewhere. When her debt was paid, she would be free.
2\. He could work elsewhere and pay off the debt for them, releasing them from their contractual obligations.
3\. He could commit himself to working permanently for his employer.
With your first link to "non-apologetic sources," your Patheos author made a timing mistake. I'm talking about 1400 BC, not New Testament times. The Greco-Roman empire of the New Testament times had an abusive practice of owning people, slave pens, and all kinds of physical and sexual abuse. That's not the world of Exodus.
Your second link (Slaveowners...) makes a scholarship mistake. Of course the cultures of the ancient world had slaves, but not like Greco-Roman or the colonization period of the western world. He lumps them all together.
This text of Exodus 21 is explicated more deeply in Deuteronomy 15. For understanding, we must look deeper into the law and the understandings of the culture than the bare bones of the text. Deut. 15 seeks to prevent the establishment of a permanent poor underclass and the perpetuity of a debt-slave situation. The idea in those laws is to totally eradicate debt-servanthood in the land (Dt. 15.4). Debt-law was to be battled rather than institutionalized. The principles are all about helping each other NOT be poor, not creating economic systems and policies to institutionalize poverty and debt-slavery.
Now, there are other law codes from the ancient Near East that give enlightenment as well (Hammurabi, Lipit-Ishtar of Babylon, King Bilalama of Eshnunna, Ur Nammu, and the laws of the Hittites. I mentioned the contract has been found in the city of Emar). What it illustrates is that there were rules and agreements about such things, not just "the man can leave and the rest of the family can't." Exodus 21.4, then, is the same type of casuistic law, and is establishing that reference point, recognizing standard procedure in these types of situations, viz., contractual agreements are established to govern such situations, and the judge is to begin his ruling over the case by consulting the contract, and then is free to modify his verdict according to other pertinent factors. This is the way law worked then, and, frankly, it's how it still works now.
Yeah, I prefer to get my research from the scholars and not from the Internet or from either apologetic or non-apologetic sources. I get as straight to the original sources as possible.
Exodus 21.4: When a free man gave a wife to another man who owed him something, certain cultural conditions applied to that marriage. The man who was working off a debt (one who worked as an employee, or as a servant, even though their culture used the term "slave") was a debt-slave, working off his debt to a person with labor. We do the same thing today, and we call it "employment." They didn't have such a word, and used the word "slave." It meant something completely different than "slave" means in our ears today. Typically, the debt-servant could take the wife, and any children born to them, only by satisfying certain requirements. These were cultural patterns, not biblically-commanded ones.
As evidence I offer the record of a contract from the city of Emar (probably 13th c. BC). The debt-servant in this case may take take his wife and children with him when he leaves the service of his creditor, but only if he abides by the basic agreement set forth in the contract. When this document addresses the possibility that the debt-servant might renege on his commitment to abide by the contract, then the pledge "will have no claim to his wife and children." This law in Exodus may be establishing what was standard procedure in these types of situations; modifications were probably allowed if clearly established in a contractual agreement. Remember, it's casuistic law, not commandments.
A bride in this situation was probably also part of a debt-service contract, and thus she and her family also had financial obligations to the "master." The free person (the person who had finished working off his debt and was married to the lady who still had debt) had three options in that culture:
1\. Wait for his wife and kids to finish their term of service while he worked elsewhere. When her debt was paid, she would be free.
2\. He could work elsewhere and pay off the debt for them, releasing them from their contractual obligations.
3\. He could commit himself to working permanently for his employer.
With your first link to "non-apologetic sources," your Patheos author made a timing mistake. I'm talking about 1400 BC, not New Testament times. The Greco-Roman empire of the New Testament times had an abusive practice of owning people, slave pens, and all kinds of physical and sexual abuse. That's not the world of Exodus.
Your second link (Slaveowners...) makes a scholarship mistake. Of course the cultures of the ancient world had slaves, but not like Greco-Roman or the colonization period of the western world. He lumps them all together.
This text of Exodus 21 is explicated more deeply in Deuteronomy 15. For understanding, we must look deeper into the law and the understandings of the culture than the bare bones of the text. Deut. 15 seeks to prevent the establishment of a permanent poor underclass and the perpetuity of a debt-slave situation. The idea in those laws is to totally eradicate debt-servanthood in the land (Dt. 15.4). Debt-law was to be battled rather than institutionalized. The principles are all about helping each other NOT be poor, not creating economic systems and policies to institutionalize poverty and debt-slavery.
Now, there are other law codes from the ancient Near East that give enlightenment as well (Hammurabi, Lipit-Ishtar of Babylon, King Bilalama of Eshnunna, Ur Nammu, and the laws of the Hittites. I mentioned the contract has been found in the city of Emar). What it illustrates is that there were rules and agreements about such things, not just "the man can leave and the rest of the family can't." Exodus 21.4, then, is the same type of casuistic law, and is establishing that reference point, recognizing standard procedure in these types of situations, viz., contractual agreements are established to govern such situations, and the judge is to begin his ruling over the case by consulting the contract, and then is free to modify his verdict according to other pertinent factors. This is the way law worked then, and, frankly, it's how it still works now.