18 It shall not seem hard to you, when you let him go free from you; for to the double of the hire of a hireling has he served you six years: and Yahweh your God will bless you in all that you do.
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
It shall not seem hard unto thee. I have lately observed how difficult and inconvenient to the Jews was the observance of this law; wherefore it is not without reason that God reproves their mean and niggardly pride, if they enfranchised their slaves grudgingly. And, indeed, He first urges them to obey on the score of justice, and then from the hope of remuneration. For He reminds them that for six years the slave had earned double the wages of a hireling, either because his life was more laborious, inasmuch as heavier tasks are required from slaves than from free-men, who are paid for their work; or because he had completed twice as long a period as hirelings were wont to be engaged for. For the Jewish (commentators) [1] infer from this passage, that three years was the term prescribed for hired servants; and thus they suppose the six years were counted. But since this is a mere conjecture, I know not whether my opinion is not more suitable, that for six years their labors had been twice as profitable as would have been those of a free-man who is not under the compulsion of a slave.
1 - "The Chaldee, Vatablus, and other more recent commentators translate it, Since he has served thee for six years for double the wages of a hireling; which the Hebrews thus explain, that the wages of a slave of six years' standing are called double, because hirelings amongst the Hebrew's only engaged themselves for three years, whereas the slave served for sir years; therefore he served twice as long, and earned twice as much." -- Corn. a Lapide in loco.
He hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years - "i. e." such a servant has earned twice as much as a common hired laborer would have done in the same time.
It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double (g) hired servant [to thee], in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.
(g) For the hired servant served but three years, and he six.
It shall not seem hard to thee when thou sendest him away free from thee,.... He should not grudge him his liberty, nor what he gives to him when he dismisses him:
for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee in serving thee six years; since a hired servant a man is obliged to pay him wages for his work, besides his food, whereas a bondservant received no wages. Aben Ezra remarks, that this proves that a man might not hire himself for more than three years; or however, whereas a hired servant was sometimes hired for so many years, and this is the longest time of any we read of, a servant serving his master six years, his service must be worth double the service of an hired servant, which at most was but three years:
and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thou doest; thus well using thy servants, whether menservants or maidservants.
he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee--that is, he is entitled to double wages because his service was more advantageous to you, being both without wages and for a length of time, whereas hired servants were engaged yearly (Leviticus 25:53), or at most for three years (Isaiah 16:14).
If, on the other hand, the servant (or maid) wished to be set free, the master was not to think it hard; "for the double of the wages of a day-labourer he has earned for thee for six years," i.e., not "twice the time of a day-labourer, so that he had really deserved twice the wages" (Vatablius, Ad. Osiander, J. Gerhard), for it cannot be proved from Isaiah 16:14, that a day-labourer generally hired himself out for three years; nor yet, "he has been obliged to work much harder than a day-labourer, very often by night as well as day" (Clericus, J. H. Michaelis, Rosenmller, Baumgarten); but simply, "he has earned and produced so much, that if you had been obliged to keep a day-labourer in his place, it would have cost you twice as much" (Schultz, Knobel).
*More commentary available at chapter level.