My wife has been trying to get back into scripture, but hit a wall at Exodus 21, because of laws like these...
When a servant finishes his term, he can either go free without his wife and kids, or give up freedom and become his master's property permanently.
There's no punishment for beating a servant, as long as they live at least a day after the beating.

How does a loving father, who created us in his image, condone keeping and beating slaves?
She says it sounds more like something Allah might say, and I don't have a good explanation...

Also can anyone help us reconcile "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek"?
She sees the messages as contradictory.

Ken power answered a very similar question on the eye for an eye thing by the following quote from The Owners Manual:-

(874) Evil inflicted is to be paid back with the equivalent evil. “If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him—fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.” (Leviticus 24:19-20) Whether through malice or negligence, injuries inflicted are to be met with payment in kind. The stark logic and equity of God’s law can be somewhat startling when compared with the anemic shadow we see in our own legal statutes. Consider this hypothetical scenario: a guy walks into a bar (no, this isn’t the beginning of a joke) and has a few too many beers. Another patron comes in and says something that offends him, so our drunken subject expresses his opinion to the contrary with a pool cue, breaking the man’s arm.

Under our laws, he might be arrested for being drunk and disorderly with a side order of assault, jailed for a month at taxpayer’ expense, slapped with a fine (which goes to the county, not the victim), and released on parole (again, at taxpayers’ expense). The victim, meanwhile, goes to the hospital to get his arm set, misses four days of work, sticks his insurance company with the bill (after paying a hefty deductible), and then weighs the option of hiring a lawyer to sue his assailant for damages, deciding in the end that since the inebriate with the pool cue is probably as broke as he is stupid, suing him would be an expensive exercise in futility. The insurance company spreads out their loss over the future premiums of a hundred thousand policy holders, the county uses the perp’s fine to cover court costs and police salaries, and the victim’s employer builds the cost of his recovery time into the price of their product, passing it on to you and me.

Yahweh’s law works a bit differently. The witnesses would take the offender to the town’s elders and explain what happened. Upon confirmation of the facts, he would be required to (1) pay out of his own pocket all of his victim’s medical expenses; (2) make good the loss of income the victim (or his employer) would have incurred due to his injuries (see Mitzvah #299, Exodus 21:18-19); and then (3) have his own arm broken with a pool cue. Direct, just, and dare I say, downright poetic. At this point, of course, the perp (having sobered up) is thinking to himself, I think I’m losing my taste for beer. Thank God I didn’t shoot him in the kneecap.

The whole thing could have turned out quite differently under our laws, of course. Yahweh’s instructions prevent this scenario as well: the victim does decide to sue, and hires the slickest lawyer he can find. He wins his civil case and is awarded four thousand dollars in actual damages (though neither his insurance company or employer ever get reimbursed for their expenses) and four million in punitive damages. The offender’s insurance company negotiates it down to two point five mil and passes the loss on to their policyholders. Justice has not been served here. It has been mugged and left for dead on the sidewalk.

The inevitable spiritual application looks like this: if your handling of spiritual matters (doctrine, exegesis, interpretation, etc.) is used maliciously or negligently to harm or exert control, hindering someone’s search for God’s truth, expect the “weapons” you use to be turned back against you. I know you’re probably getting tired of hearing me say this, but religion is often the single biggest impediment to forming a relationship with Yahweh. If your philosophy blinds your brother to the truth of Yahweh’s love, you’d better start getting used to life in the dark.

Well done KP. This is actually very helpful.

Noel

It seems to me that He was teaching how to treat brothers and sisters not really the outside world. It would make no since for Him to teach us that we should stand down while we are being beheaded or or families are or anything like this.

I think it also shows not to get into servitude, with these laws were issued right being freed from the slavery in Mitsryim (Eygypt) to make a point. Then later warned if they did not heed all instructed they would fall back into slavery.
There is nothing new under the sun. For instance here in the USA, and one reads the Constitution and notes it hardly resembles the limited powers of federal (and even state) governments, it seems that many of our natural rights have been contracted away, granted decietfully and without full disclosure....when taking Social Security Cards, W2, marriage licenses, even birth certificates, and etc. I've known folks who've studied the volumes of law on this and try to untangle themselve from it. Also when we take out loans, and all sorts of things. YHWH told us not to, but if we do he holds us to it. History of human govenment seems repetive and repeats the cycle of courage - freedom - plenty - bondage.

Thanks for the replies, good discussion so far.
Anyone want to take a shot at "it's ok to beat your slave as long as he gets up after a day or two"?

Why is OK to even own a slave, let alone beat him?

so you feel everything He taught and said was a blanket teaching to all? I dont think its about being macho at all, its about right and wrong, justice and liberty, freedom. You think He would teach us not to stand for whats good? I will do some studying on all this and get back.

I think there is an obvious difference between "said" and "written" are we talking about a personal/family feud or are we talking about a penal code enforced by the duly appointed leaders/elders of the community and the congregation?

As far as the issue of slavery goes I am trying to think off the top of my head but I believe there is a statute where if the master inflicts any sort of severe injury upon his/her servant then the servent is free to go. I once asked a rabbi what the unstipulated punishment for killing a servant was and the rabbi said it was death...obviously we all know the baggage that goes with an answer from a religious leader but in this case I would have expected sanction for the owner from the religious authority. In this case the servant in the eyes of YHWH is lifted up above all other contemporary cultures of Israel. Also what must be considered is that the servants in Israel are to be circumcised (if it applies) and are to observe the ordinances of Israel....specifically the appointed times. That once again elevates the servant.

Slavery as outlined in the scriptures carries the seeds of it's own destruction. YHWH does not always give direct do this/don't do this commands. With things like slavery and polygamy He gives us all the evidence we should need that these acts are not anything He gives His stamp of approval to. But sometimes these acts are necessary and even merciful. We need to realize that the majority of the world still deals with these issues in a very practical manner.

Polygamy is still a common practice in much of the world and I have heard enough stories about how christian missionaries went to foreign lands and tried to enforce their own norms on the converts of those lands with often tragic consequences. If a former muslim from Pakistan or wherever wants to have a relationship with YHWH and he is a polygamist it is not for us to break up his family. We can try and persuade him to the best of our ability to follow the Tanakh's ordinances pertaining to polygamy and help him to connect the dots about what YHWH clearly illustrates about how He feels about the arrangement. And more than likely he will make sure his children will not be subjected or allowed to participate in such an institution.
As for servitude in the worst of situations and the worst of times it can be a merciful and necessary institution....that said we have plenty of evidence that it is not YHWH's ideal nor does it have His stamp of approval. It is not to be taken lightly, as Jeremiah 34 clearly indicates.
With things like kingship, polygamy, slavery....therse are things about which YHWH is indirectly saying "you shouldn't do these things but when you do......"

As for the issue about the male servant and a family given to him by his master. We need to keep 2 things in mind. 1.) The master has payed for this arrangement. He is the one who has payed for not only the housing, clothing, food and all other human needs for this servant and his family but has actually provided the wife at an expense...The Towrah already stipulated what is to be done when a man and wife come into a condition of servitude. They are as a couple to exit it. If he just lets the servant go with his family it very well could be a great financial loss. 2.) Forgive me for extrapolating but I don't think the Torah is as inflexible as we would sometimes believe. I think what we see is two extremes: going free and abandoning your family and lifelong servitude with your family. I think....and I only think...this is my opinion....nothing more......that there are a lot of options in between. I don't think an arragement where the servant goes out into freedom to work (perhaps at a rrade or with skills obtained while in servitude) in order to reimburse his former master and thereby buy his family's freedom is forbidden simply because it is not mentioned and with all the evidence of how important the themes of redemption and redeemer are in the Towrah I believe there is a good case that such agreements are not forbidden. Once again we also have to remember that this does not bind the master doing so. "Well, ya know Baruch I would love to let Shulamith and your kids go with you....but there's that pesky issue of the Torah...." The master is within his rights to keep the family....that doesn't mean he must. That is how I see it.

There is actually a 3rd point that I feel has been ignored. In the case of the lifelong servitude option. The man does not just love his family. He loves his master. He wants to stay with not only his family but also with the master. This leads me to believe that this is more evidence that there are options between the before mentioned extremes. I don't believe this is an all or nothing proposition.

Yes, slavery isnt always as we seem to view it these days, good thoughts bro