FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   414   415   416   417   418   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438  
439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   >>   >|  
ater) _is_ the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_ of the Bible is too amiable, not to be gratified in this case. The words in the original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ is he." The objector's principle of interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its miracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into _solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble withal--reasoning against _"forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xxiii. 15, quite outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase, "_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since, if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the fact of his living sometime after the injury_, (if the master _meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it.) all together make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master from _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_ as he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or after a day or two, he was _equally_ his property, and the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely punished" for destroying _his own property_! The other inference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, the loss of the servant would be a sufficient punishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A _pecuniary loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ of another. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum. God would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. "Ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he shall surely be put to death." Num. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable homicide, where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money availed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until the death of the High Priest. Num. xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be a penalty _adequate
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   414   415   416   417   418   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438  
439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

master

 

servant

 

property

 

objector

 

killed

 

surely

 
inference
 
pecuniary
 

silver

 

injury


intent

 
punished
 

caused

 

inflicting

 
punishment
 

continuance

 

sufficient

 
cleared
 

dispose

 

inferences


pleased

 

destroyed

 

admits

 
equally
 

Whether

 
destroying
 

homicide

 

slipped

 

excusable

 

murderer


availed

 

release

 

doctrine

 

penalty

 

adequate

 

Priest

 

confinement

 

refuge

 

SATISFACTION

 

person


principles
 

Mosaic

 

weight

 

balancing

 

spurned

 

cheapen

 

principle

 

interpretation

 

philosopher

 

original