John Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: December 2

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

John Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: December 2

Today is: Saturday, April 27th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)

Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of December: (Show All Months)

Debtors and Creditors

2Ki_4:1-7

After these great public concerns, the course of the sacred history brings us into the midst of scenes of private trouble. The poor widow of one of the sons of the prophets, comes to Elisha to tell him her tale of sorrow. Her husband, though a good man and a servant of the Lord, had died leaving some debt unpaid, and the harsh creditor was come upon her, claiming her only son as his slave, in discharge of his father’s debt. The precise object of the woman in making this statement to the prophet, is not clear. She must have been aware, that he had no means of defraying her debt from his own resources. She might have thought he would apply to the king on her behalf, or that he would use the influence of his character and position with the creditor, to induce him to forego his claim. To both these courses there were objections, more likely to strike the mind of Elisha than that of the applicant. It was undesirable that he should compromise his independence, and the dignity of his office, by seeking favors of the king; and he would not like to use the power which his character gave, by inducing the suitor to submit to a loss by foregoing a claim which might be harsh, but which was yet such as the law sanctioned and allowed. He preferred that the debt should be paid—but how? He asked the woman what she had left in the house, and she told him that there was nothing but a little oil. It is indeed remarkable, that poor people in Israel who are reduced to the last extremities, generally have a little oil left. So the woman of Zarephath had, beside a morsel of bread, nothing remaining but a small quantity of oil. Such facts, much better than any labored statements and illustrations, show the very great and conspicuous importance of oil to this people. It seems to have been the most essential necessary of life, next to bread. On learning this, the prophet told her to borrow as many vessels as she could, and to fill them out of the one containing this small portion of oil, and sell what she thus obtained to pay the debt, and to deliver her son from the danger. She did this; and the miraculous supply of oil ceased not while there remained one vessel to be filled.

The Jews have a notion, that the husband of this woman was no other than Obadiah, the well-known intendant of Ahab’s household; and they suppose that the debt was incurred while he maintained the Lord’s prophets in a cave. This, they say, he reckoned upon paying in time out of the proceeds of his office; but being soon deprived of that office through the influence of Jezebel, he was reduced to poverty, and died without paying the debt. They even fancy that the harsh creditor was no other than king Jehoram himself. We need not say that there is no scriptural foundation for these conjectures, which seem to have been devised in order to supply a more cogent reason for the Divine interference, through Elisha, for this poor widow’s behalf. But surely this is not needed; and the fact that her husband was known to Elisha, and was one of the sons of the prophets (which, by-the-bye, Obadiah was not), supplies a sufficient reason for the interest the prophet took in her sad case.

We wish, however, to direct attention to the law under which this sad emergency was produced. As with us, the property of one who died insolvent became chargeable for his debts; but the principle which operated in determining what constituted property, was carried farther than with us, and created all the real difference in the case. Children were regarded as the property of the father in a sense so absolute, that it was in his power to sell them to pay his debts. The law expressly provided, that in the case of poverty, a man might sell himself, and also his children. Note: Exo_21:7; Lev_25:39. It was by an extension of this permission, and in virtue of another law, which ordained that a thief, who had not wherewith to make restitution, should be sold, Note: Exo_22:3. that creditors were allowed to seize the children of their debtors in payment. The law made no express provision in the case; but we see by the present and some other passages, that this usage was common among the Hebrews, and was recognized as having the force of law. There is a manifest allusion to it in Isa_50:1—“Which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves.” Our Lord himself uttered a parable respecting a creditor, who having found a large sum due to him, commanded the debtor to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had. Note: Mat_18:25. We thus see that the usage was common among the Hebrews, to the latest times of their commonwealth.

The custom was not peculiar to them. It was general in ancient times. The Romans, the Athenians, the nations of Asia, and divers other peoples, exercised the same right over their children, in this and most other respects, as the Hebrews. The parents sold them in their poverty; and creditors seized the children of their debtors as freely as their cattle and movables. Romulus gave to a father every kind of power over his children; and that not only during their nonage, but throughout their lives, and to whatever dignity or power they might attain. He might imprison them, or flog them, or compel them to labor in his fields, or even kill them, or sell them for slaves. Numa Pompilius moderated the severity of this law by enacting, that when a man had married with the consent of his father, the latter no longer had power to sell him for a slave. Apart from this restriction, the practice of selling their children had a very long existence among the Romans. Eventually it was forbidden by the emperors Dioclesian and Maximilian, that any free persons should be reduced to slavery because of their debts. The paternal rights over children were originally exercised by the Athenians with the same rigor as by the Romans; but the severity of these customs was moderated by Solon. When Lucullus governed Roman Asia, he found the practice of the Asiatics in respect of the selling of children for the payment of debt, and the eventual seizure of the parents themselves, when no children were left, to be such as struck even his Roman mind as appalling; and he labored to ameliorate the great evils which he witnessed.

In our own day, the absolute right of parents in the disposal of their children exists in the East, in all, or nearly all, its ancient force. In regard to selling them, which is the point under notice, it may suffice to refer to the practice of a Christian nation, the Georgians, who habitually sold both their sons and daughters, and who still do so, as far as they can, notwithstanding the laudable efforts of the Russian government to suppress this odious traffic. We have ourselves known children to be offered for sale by their parents, in the streets of a Mohammedan city, during a time of famine.

It will be seen that the two things—the sale of children by parents, and their seizure by creditors—merge into each other, as the right of the creditor in this matter accrues from the right of the father. There is no instance in any nation, of a creditor being empowered to seize children, where the father himself did not possess the right of selling them.