"Slavery" in the Bible

[POI]

Allow us readers to be very careful. We must make sure we identify the proper context here, to assure against hasty and/or self-serving conclusions.

Exodus 21:2-3:

"2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him." <-- Okay, this seems clear enough, if you are a purchased Hebrew, with a wife, you are both to go free in year 7.

Exodus 21:4:

"4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." <-- Here is where things start to look sketchy for the modern-day believer. If the slave is provided with a wife, and they have kids, the wife and kids are to stay with the slave master. They are not to go free.

Exodus 21:5-6:

"5 "But if the servant declares, I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free, 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." <-- More uncomfortability for the Christian here. Without getting into the weeds, common sense suggests a special rule is made to trick the male Hebrew into remaining a slave for life.

Leviticus 25:44-46:

"44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." <-- More awkwardness for the believer, as the Bible reader clammers to find a rationale to make this passage not read the way it does.

Here is a basic definition of chattel slavery --> "Chattel slavery is full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation"

Looks like all the ingredients fit the given Bible description here, minus the torture. Wait a minute, this is covered in the rest of Exodus 21. (i.e.):

"20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." <-- So basically, since the slave is your property, beatings with impunity are acceptable. Just don't kill them.

For debate:

By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery?

Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves?

************************

Before you answer, consider this.... Since the NT does not mention the abolition of 'slavery', and yet the Bible makes further proclamation(s) and/or addendums (in favor of retaining 'slavery',) this means the Bible is not against chattel slavery either. Further, the Christian may want to introduce the importance of the 'golden rule'. However, the specifics outweigh the generals. The specifics of the rules for engagement of slavery are outside the 'golden rule'. Otherwise, the Bible would be a one-pager. 'Slavery' is an expressed exception to the general rule. Thus, anytime a specific scenario is not invoked, yes, 'golden rule.'

[1213]

...I have cherry picked nothing. ...

Yes you have, you pick those and ignore the main rule that sets the limits for those.

[benchwarmer]

The Bible instructs passages which violate one's own will.

I actually do not see this as the case because all slaves can try to run away or even hurt or kill their masters. It's no more a violation of free will than the commandment against murder.

Perhaps slightly on a tangent, but God has no problem violating people's (according to the Bible) will which calls into question whether we always have free will in a Biblical view:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

10 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them

Or in other words, I'm going to purposefully cause these people to disobey what I want so I can turn around and do 'great wonders' (which are ridiculous, pointless, and completely unnecessary). How anyone can praise a god who acts like this is beyond me.

I would prefer a god (if there is one) to pick elegant solutions to problems that not only cause little or no harm, but help everyone involved.

Case in point, just put the Egyptians to sleep for 48 hours and have the slaves walk away in peace. Done.

[Purple Knight]

I would prefer a god (if there is one) to pick elegant solutions to problems that not only cause little or no harm, but help everyone involved.

Case in point, just put the Egyptians to sleep for 48 hours and have the slaves walk away in peace. Done.

I mean, you're not wrong. I can think of a few reasons for God doing as he did (maybe to convince the Egyptians that keeping the Jews wasn't worth it, or maybe even to burn the bridge for the Jews so they couldn't go back even if they found it worse outside) but it definitely does seem like he violated free will in that particular instance.

I'll even be really generous with free will and say that even a drunk who physically cannot stop drinking has free will as long as he wants to stop, but the language here - messing with the heart - I got nothing for that one.

[POI]

The Bible instructs passages which violate one's own will.

I actually do not see this as the case because all slaves can try to run away or even hurt or kill their masters. It's no more a violation of free will than the commandment against murder.

Does the Bible endorse certain types of chattel slavery, or not? 1213 is trying to wiggle, using "technicalities." If we want to hyper-focus on what constitutes one's own will, we can. Leviticus 25 stated you can MAKE them your slave. So yea, not much debate here... But the larger point will still stand regardless... The Bible endorses chattel slavery.

[Purple Knight]

The Bible instructs passages which violate one's own will.

I actually do not see this as the case because all slaves can try to run away or even hurt or kill their masters. It's no more a violation of free will than the commandment against murder.

Does the Bible endorse certain types of chattel slavery, or not?

I think it does when the master is a Jew and the slave isn't. So it even endorses the idea of race-based slavery that everyone hates.

The only thing it doesn't do is allow whites to enslave Blacks, which is the specific instance of slavery that seems to set the world on fire with its disgusting immorality.

1213 is trying to wiggle, using "technicalities." If we want to hyper-focus on what constitutes one's own will, we can. But the larger point will still stand... The Bible endorses chattel slavery.

I don't think 1213 should do that, but this is to be taken with a grain of salt because I'm imagining how I would defend something that isn't actually my position.

If it was my position I would either say that the specific instance of slavery that has us all saying that slavery is wrong wrong wrong, is not actually endorsed by the Bible. Or I would say that we hyper-focus on on-paper slavery being wrong and maybe instead of that we should care about the conditions people actually live in, and getting those conditions as good as possible whether someone is owned on paper, or not. It's not an easy position to take but I feel it's the most honest if you're going to defend the Bible.

[POI]

The Bible instructs passages which violate one's own will.

I actually do not see this as the case because all slaves can try to run away or even hurt or kill their masters. It's no more a violation of free will than the commandment against murder.

Does the Bible endorse certain types of chattel slavery, or not?

I think it does when the master is a Jew and the slave isn't. So it even endorses the idea of race-based slavery that everyone hates.

The only thing it doesn't do is allow whites to enslave Blacks, which is the specific instance of slavery that seems to set the world on fire with its disgusting immorality.

The transatlantic slave trade came much later. But Christians also used the Bible to 'support' their efforts too.

[POI]

...I have cherry picked nothing. ...

Yes you have, you pick those and ignore the main rule that sets the limits for those.

Nope. No cherry picking here... I've explained, repeatedly. All that is now displayed here is your denial.

[POI]

I don't think 1213 should do that,

If it was my position I would either say that the specific instance of slavery that has us all saying that slavery is wrong wrong wrong, is not actually endorsed by the Bible. Or I would say that we hyper-focus on on-paper slavery being wrong and maybe instead of that we should care about the conditions people actually live in, and getting those conditions as good as possible whether someone is owned on paper, or not. It's not an easy position to take but I feel it's the most honest if you're going to defend the Bible.

Regardless, you would still be faced with attempting to defend the following:

-- The female is not to ever go free, but the males can. (Ex. 21)
-- The offspring are to remain with the slave master for life. (Ex. 21)
-- The father can give the daughter to the slave master for life. (Ex. 21)
-- Beatings, for life, to the back side of a slave are perfectly fine (Ex. 21)
-- Foreigners can be bought and sold and are to remain as property for life. (Lev. 25)

[Purple Knight]

Regardless, you would still be faced with attempting to defend the following:

-- The female is not to ever go free, but the males can. (Ex. 21)
-- The offspring are to remain with the slave master for life. (Ex. 21)
-- The father can give the daughter to the slave master for life. (Ex. 21)
-- Beatings, for life, to the back side of a slave are perfectly fine (Ex. 21)
-- Foreigners can be bought and sold and are to remain as property for life. (Lev. 25)

Again this is not my position but I think it still deserves an honest and fair defence. And so, mine would be that the American transatlantic slave trade, which is the ONLY thing that ever royally p'd people off, almost nobody was upset about slavery before that and certainly not the world population at large, is not represented by those rules and in fact breaks many of them.

I actually don't know what sets the American transatlantic slave trade apart. I have had the thought that it was only that it was industrialised and so brought the issue into the spotlight. But I hate people of normal intellect and this is just how I think about them and for all I know I'm being incredibly biased. I see them as having spotlights for brains and not realising that and causing a lot of trouble.

If I'm going to be more fair to them too, maybe it was the racial issue. Slavery before had never been along purely racial lines and directly opposite of the racial lines proscribed in the Bible, since Black Africans have some Jewish DNA and the Europeans enslaving them did not. This kinda hurts me to say because it feels like stretching bread dough until it's clear, but what if the reason it seems so hard for people to define why American slavery was just worse, but they all accept that it was, is because God is real and American slavery in particular was a direct inversion of the racial principles God wanted people to follow when they took slaves?

I wouldn't even post that. Except I can't see another good reason (...one that's fair and respectful to the people doing it...) that everyone's conscience points the same way about this.

The "scientific" person is often dismissive. If two people in an insane asylum see one of the psychiatrists as a demon, they go "lol" and dismiss it. But the genuinely curious and doubtful person will make sure they're not comparing notes and ask them to describe the demon.

[POI]

Regardless, you would still be faced with attempting to defend the following:

-- The female is not to ever go free, but the males can. (Ex. 21)
-- The offspring are to remain with the slave master for life. (Ex. 21)
-- The father can give the daughter to the slave master for life. (Ex. 21)
-- Beatings, for life, to the back side of a slave are perfectly fine (Ex. 21)
-- Foreigners can be bought and sold and are to remain as property for life. (Lev. 25)

Again this is not my position but I think it still deserves an honest and fair defence..........

I'll stop you here. Yes, I'm aware this is not your position. And yes, I also understand you would like to provide a steelman argument. But I find it indefensible. Why? Take Tam's response. She stated the Bible condones divorce even though God did not like it. Okay, well, I would imagine that tam thinks chattel slavery is worse than divorce. And yet, the Bible expresses how divorce is wrong, but still allows for it in some cases. Where chattel slavery is concerned, none of that. Only endorsements. Further, we can rationalize all sorts of reasons why divorce would be okay. And yet, the Bible still expresses how divorce is not okay. Alternately, we can think of fewer reasons why such expressed chattel slavery would be okay, and yet, the Bible is SILENT on it's (not being okay). Kinda damning..........