"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.'

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

The Bible mentioned 2 separate slavery systems, namely the Hebrew slave system and the secular slave system. God mentioned clearly that Hebrews are not allowed to enslave other Hebrews. So the Hebrew slave system is just a labor system to help out the poor fellow Hebrews, such that the poor won't sell themselves to the gentiles. Later this Hebrew system was abused and God called it off through Jeremiah.

Leviticus 25:42 (NIV):
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.

Jeremiah 34:8-9 (NIV):
The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage.

So all left is the secular slavery system which God allowed Moses to set up rules in order to settle the common disputes. Consider that back then the Egyptians could kill the children of Israelites on sight simply because the Israelites got over-populated, the rules set forth by Moses are much more civilized. Those rules serve as practical solutions to settle the common disputes between masters and slaves, such that both sides can be in peace with each other.

It's absolutely true - The Bible apologists always talk about the slavery of Hebrews and totally ignore the slavery of non -Hebrews, which Leviticus says was for life. That the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt (which I doubt, in fact) only makes the Bible look worse because they knew better than to enslave people, and yet the Bible says they can enslave foreigners For Life.

And Heck yeah....since you haven't noticed this discussion, I'll act like nobody noticed the animation and post it again. Watch it; it's not too long, is quite entertaining and will explain the point you appeared to have missed. Foreign slaves were Chattel slavery lifetime property for the Jews, and any Nice Guy Bible rules for Hebrew slaves did not benefit them at all.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

The Bible mentioned 2 separate slavery systems, namely the Hebrew slave system and the secular slave system. God mentioned clearly that Hebrews are not allowed to enslave other Hebrews. So the Hebrew slave system is just a labor system to help out the poor fellow Hebrews, such that the poor won't sell themselves to the gentiles. Later this Hebrew system was abused and God called it off through Jeremiah.

Leviticus 25:42 (NIV):
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.

Jeremiah 34:8-9 (NIV):
The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage.

So all left is the secular slavery system which God allowed Moses to set up rules in order to settle the common disputes. Consider that back then the Egyptians could kill the children of Israelites on sight simply because the Israelites got over-populated, the rules set forth by Moses are much more civilized. Those rules serve as practical solutions to settle the common disputes between masters and slaves, such that both sides can be in peace with each other.

Thank you for the response. However, I'm not sure if you clearly answered the original post questions(s), or not? In a round-about way, it reads as though the answers are given, and then excuses are made (i.e.)

1. Does the Bible sanction/condone chattel slavery? Yes, but....
2. Does the Bible sanction/condone breeding chattel slaves? Yes, but...

Prior to proceeding with the 'but', are we in agreement with the (2) 'yes's' given for the (2) debate questions?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes; even if (and this is arguable) the rules ordered a benign slavery, it was still slavery, for Life. unless the apologist wants to disregard what the Bible says in favour of what they would prefer it to say (which is apparently what they do) that is inescapable.

Leviticus 25. 4 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

[1213]

...If the 'golden rule' always applies, then why in the heck does there exists <God instructions> to keep slaves for life, or mentions virtual impunity for beating these slaves, and also gives instructions about how you can keep them as your property for life? You mean to tell me all the slave has to do is tell the Christian slave owner, "well sir, I do not want to be kept as property and beaten." And the slave owner will say, "okay, I'll just let you go.". Seriously?

If there would be a Christians slave owner, I think he should give freedom, if he doesn't want to be himself a slave. A Christian and a Hebrew are not necessary the same, because a Christians is a disciple of Jesus and should live by the teachings of Jesus.

I think the reason why Hebrews were allowed to buy slaves is that it would have made life better for the one who was sold. Remember, Hebrews were not allowed to sell their people, only to buy or a Hebrew was allowed voluntarily to become a slave. And if other nations are so evil that they don't obey God's rules and sell own people, buying them is not bad in this case. And also, maybe it was possible only if the person was voluntarily doing it and was not kidnapped, as the Bible tells kidnapper would deserve death penalty.

I don't think beating is acceptable in Bible, even if there is not mentioned punishment for every case. And maybe in this case it is not mentioned, because it would be stupid to beat own slave. We have to remember, these rules were given to reasonable people, not for everyone.

I think the permission to keep slave for life, is for me the most problematic of these, because I think all slaves should be counted Hebrews, or Jews eventually, if they obeyed all rules in the Bible. I don't think there could have been any case that could be therefore been held slave for life.

[1213]

...interesting point, yet it doesn't alter the fact that Leviticus says that the slaves bought from foreigners were slaves for life and property and could be passed onto the children as property. So clearly making them wear a kippoh did not make then Hebrews or there would be no need for that passage in Leviticus. Remember that converting African Slaves to Christianity did not make them any the less chattel slaves.....

It is interesting, why Christians thought they have right to buy or own slaves, when the rules were for Hebrews or Jews. Do Christians think they are Jews? Maybe they should, but I think they should also obey then all rules given in the Bible, especially those that Jesus said. I think it is annoying when people call themselves Christians, but don't live by what Jesus said, or don't even recognize what he has said.

But, I agree that there is the line in Bible for slaves for life. And to me it seem pointless. I would like to hear what a Hebrew woulds say about it and what is the correct definition for a Hebrew.

[POI]

If there would be a Christians slave owner, I think he should give freedom, if he doesn't want to be himself a slave. A Christian and a Hebrew are not necessary the same, because a Christians is a disciple of Jesus and should live by the teachings of Jesus.

Well, what you think does not align with what God thinks. This is the point. If God thought like you thought, God would not apply an instruction manual for chattel slavery practices. God would abolish it, like you would. And yet, you state you agree with God's instruction. You are in conflict with your own self here

I think the reason why Hebrews were allowed to buy slaves is that it would have made life better for the one who was sold. Remember, Hebrews were not allowed to sell their people, only to buy or a Hebrew was allowed voluntarily to become a slave. And if other nations are so evil that they don't obey God's rules and sell own people, buying them is not bad in this case. And also, maybe it was possible only if the person was voluntarily doing it and was not kidnapped, as the Bible tells kidnapper would deserve death penalty.

My original post mentions nothing about voluntary practices. Further, it looks like you agree that God does indeed sanction/condone chattel slavery and slave breeding. Thus, maybe this is why I'm starting to see the excuses. I asked if the Bible sanctions/condones chattel slavery and slave breeding, which it clearly does. You have offered nothing to refute this apparent fact. If you disagree with the statements highlighted in red, you need to demonstrate to the contrary. However, based upon the response you just provided above, it appears you do agree that God condones such practices. My evidence, for these two observations, starts at post #1.

I don't think beating is acceptable in Bible, even if there is not mentioned punishment for every case. And maybe in this case it is not mentioned, because it would be stupid to beat own slave. We have to remember, these rules were given to reasonable people, not for everyone.

Well, God does not care what you think. And God disagrees with you. The fact of the matter is that if a slave master beats their slave, and they do not die, then the slave master is not to be punished. And if the slave master knocks out an eye/tooth, the slave gets to go free. Otherwise, God instructs no punishment. The Bible literally says the master is not to be punished. --> Exodus 21.

Further, whether you think it is stupid to beat your own slaves is completely irrelevant. Further, I can muster up reasons why a master would beat their chattel slave(s). But this is besides the point.

What also is wreckless, is the instruction does not state for what reason(s) a slave can be beaten, or how often. The slave master has virtual autonomy to beat, at will, and God specifically assigns no punishment for doing so.

I think the permission to keep slave for life, is for me the most problematic of these, because I think all slaves should be counted Hebrews, or Jews eventually, if they obeyed all rules in the Bible. I don't think there could have been any case that could be therefore been held slave for life.

Prior, you stated you agree with God's instruction, but now, it looks as if you do not. Which one is it?

[boatsnguitars]

...interesting point, yet it doesn't alter the fact that Leviticus says that the slaves bought from foreigners were slaves for life and property and could be passed onto the children as property. So clearly making them wear a kippoh did not make then Hebrews or there would be no need for that passage in Leviticus. Remember that converting African Slaves to Christianity did not make them any the less chattel slaves.....

It is interesting, why Christians thought they have right to buy or own slaves, when the rules were for Hebrews or Jews. Do Christians think they are Jews? Maybe they should, but I think they should also obey then all rules given in the Bible, especially those that Jesus said. I think it is annoying when people call themselves Christians, but don't live by what Jesus said, or don't even recognize what he has said.

But, I agree that there is the line in Bible for slaves for life. And to me it seem pointless. I would like to hear what a Hebrew woulds say about it and what is the correct definition for a Hebrew.

I've spoken with a few Jewish people - so not Hebrews, but, you know, close(?)... Of course there are a variety of views, but one predominate one was that God is real but largely hidden and the OT is a book describing how humans are trying to make sense of God, not a literal chronicling of God. They believed God made us, then left us to our own devices to figure things out as he watches to see what happens. Kind of testing us and wishing us well.

So, with that, slavery would be completely man-made, and they just used God as the excuse.

[TRANSPONDER]

...interesting point, yet it doesn't alter the fact that Leviticus says that the slaves bought from foreigners were slaves for life and property and could be passed onto the children as property. So clearly making them wear a kippoh did not make then Hebrews or there would be no need for that passage in Leviticus. Remember that converting African Slaves to Christianity did not make them any the less chattel slaves.....

It is interesting, why Christians thought they have right to buy or own slaves, when the rules were for Hebrews or Jews. Do Christians think they are Jews? Maybe they should, but I think they should also obey then all rules given in the Bible, especially those that Jesus said. I think it is annoying when people call themselves Christians, but don't live by what Jesus said, or don't even recognize what he has said.

But, I agree that there is the line in Bible for slaves for life. And to me it seem pointless. I would like to hear what a Hebrew woulds say about it and what is the correct definition for a Hebrew.

Bible apologists explain that God had to go along with the mores of the time, which is why he put rules for the treatment of slaves. I have never denied that this is intended to be as fair and reasonable a system as the people of the time could devise. And there is why I say this is not the word or even inspiration of a god, but the system of moral values devised or at least codified by the Jews who wrote it. The pivotal point is the one most hotly disputed - whether it was ok and permitted for Hebrews to own foreign slaves. Clearly it was. Which is why slavery was ok up to the 18th c when the ideas of abolition began.

You may not agree, but you must surely understand why we goddless for this and many other reasons doubt the Bible is a record of fact but a record of the opinions of the writers. The slavery issue is appended to the whole Problem of Evil, which has many parts,from why natural disasters occur if there is a god that could (so the Bible tells us) stop it to why prayer evidently doesn't work The easiest explanation (avoiding all manner of logical epicycles about hiddenness) is that the mishaps are natural and if there is a god, it doesn't intervene, in anything. Certainly not in telling humans Command no. 11'Thou shalt not buy sell nor own as property, any other human being."

Since the Israelites had themselves (as Leviticus points out) been recently enslaved, they knew it was not moral. It certainly cut across the golden rule and as apologists point out,that alone should be reason not to have chattel slavery. That's the hot point of debate - if the Bible were the record of God there should not be slavery. Is there? To me clearly there is in its'most blatant chattel -owning form. Lev.25. Christians may deny it, but to the impartial observer, it's as plain as a whipping =post.It was Ok for the Hebrews to own foreign slave for life.

Which is why (if any further proof was needed) it was ok to enslave up to the 18th c everywhere in Europe and America except the Bible -belt.And they'd have slaves today if they'd won the civil war, and you may take that as a sure bet as you can bet on the Bible being the word of man, not of a god.

[boatsnguitars]

...interesting point, yet it doesn't alter the fact that Leviticus says that the slaves bought from foreigners were slaves for life and property and could be passed onto the children as property. So clearly making them wear a kippoh did not make then Hebrews or there would be no need for that passage in Leviticus. Remember that converting African Slaves to Christianity did not make them any the less chattel slaves.....

It is interesting, why Christians thought they have right to buy or own slaves, when the rules were for Hebrews or Jews. Do Christians think they are Jews? Maybe they should, but I think they should also obey then all rules given in the Bible, especially those that Jesus said. I think it is annoying when people call themselves Christians, but don't live by what Jesus said, or don't even recognize what he has said.

But, I agree that there is the line in Bible for slaves for life. And to me it seem pointless. I would like to hear what a Hebrew woulds say about it and what is the correct definition for a Hebrew.

Bible apologists explain that God had to go along with the mores of the time, which is why he put rules for the treatment of slaves. I have never denied that this is intended to be as fair and reasonable a system as the people of the time could devise. And there is why I say this is not the word or even inspiration of a god, but the system of moral values devised or at least codified by the Jews who wrote it. The pivotal point is the one most hotly disputed - whether it was ok and permitted for Hebrews to own foreign slaves. Clearly it was. Which is why slavery was ok up to the 18th c when the ideas of abolition began.

You may not agree,but you must surely understand why we goddless for this and many other reasons doubt the Bible is a record of fact but a record of the opinions of the writers. The slavery issue is appended to the whole Problem of Evil, which has many parts,from why natural disasters occur if there is a god that could (so the Bible tells us) stop it. The easiest explanation (avoiding all manner of logical epicycles about hiddenness) is that they are natural and if there is a god, it doesn't intervene, in anything. Certainly not in telling humans Command no. 11'Thou shalt not buy sell nor own as property, any other human being."

Since the Israelites had themselves (as Leviticus points out) been recently enslaved, they knew it was not moral. It certainly cut across the golden rule and as apologists point out,that alone should be reason not to have chattel slavery. That's the hot point of debate - if the Bible were the record of God there should not be slavery. Is there? To me clearly there is in its'most blatant chattel -owning form. Lev.25. Christians may deny it, but to the impartial observer, it's as plain as a whipping =post.It was Ok for the Hebrews to own foreign slave for life.

Which is why (if any further proof was needed) it was ok to enslave up to the 18th c everywhere in Europe and America except the Bible -belt.And they'd have slaves today if they'd won the civil war, and you may take that as a sure bet as you can bet on the Bible being the word of man, not of a god.

It seems to me there are at least three answers:
1. God doesn't mind slavery.
2. The OT was wrong to say God was OK with slavery
3. Slavery is fine for Hebrews but not the rest of us.

What is sad is that Christians have purged their memories of the many passionate defenses of slavery made over the centuries, in which they convinced themselves that slavery was the best thing to do for those "poor savages" - and, no doubt, there are many Christians who still feel this way but they know it's not PC. This is what makes the danger of a Trump so dangerous. We are only a few steps away from this mentality flooding back as the norm. Some Christians love to argue that there are objective Moral Values - and it's been shown that they are willing to defend slavery as one of those moral values to maintain, not abolish. This is the real-world danger every generation has to be aware of to make sure it doesn't creep back.

[POI]

Bible apologists explain that God had to go along with the mores of the time, which is why he put rules for the treatment of slaves.

Reminds me of a video I watched a while back: