"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.'

[tam]

Peace to you,

But you DON'T deal with all of it.

I told you why, many times. It's not all bad, ugly, weird, or contradictory. But it's pointless to bring up the parts in which we are going to all unanimously agree upon. This is a debate forum. Not an echo chamber.

If you don't deal with ALL of it, there is no meaningful or honest debate/discussion.

The FACT is that the example and commandments of Christ leave NO ROOM for someone to enslave another person against their will.

You ignore that.

The answer to your question # 2 is a resounding 'NO'. A person CANNOT use the bible to endorse chattel slavery (or enslavement of any kind), UNLESS they ignore the words and example of Christ, in what is written. Ignoring at least some of His words and example is the only way you are able to maintain your argument.

May I remind you what Q2 actually asks:

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

The answer here is YES. Why? Exodus 21:4-6.

Are you actually asking, "If we ignore the NT and Christ, then a believer can effectively use 'the bible' in support of breeding chattel slaves?"

What difference does it make? You are arguing for what 'the bible' says. His words are part of what is written in 'the bible'. So how can you ignore them?

The Bible is where the words of Jesus are all said to originate. Nowhere else.... Whatever is in the Bible is exactly what Jesus endorses. It's said to all be from the 'almighty.' You wish to argue that not all of it is from Jesus.

Well it is not all from Him. It is not even all from God. But I still think this is besides the point. If you believed (or argued) that every word was from Him, then how would you reconcile the contradictions? Or the corrections that He made "you have heard it said, but I tell you now..." or "the reason Moses gave you this law is because your hearts were hard..."? Or the fact that God said He desired every yoke to be broken?

I would not argue against that verse. I don't think you have been taught correctly what it means (and I think you should watch your 'church lady convenient' video when it comes to claiming that it all comes from the same source: Jesus), but this is just a diversion.

LOL! If you would not argue that verse, then you would agree that all scripture receives Jesus' seal of approval. You would not argue that this verse, or that command, is not all what Jesus really wants.

I would not agree. Christ, Himself, said 'woe to you scribes.' Jeremiah 8:8 (scripture) states that the lying pen of the scribes has handled the law falsely. Christ said that Moses permitted Israel to divorce their wives, but that it was NOT this way from the beginning. He then proceeded to tell them the truth.

I haven't argued against the claim that Israel was given permission to have slaves (even for life.)

That is because you cannot. You also cannot argue that the 'golden rule' wasn't also already a thing as well, in Leviticus 19. My point being, is that a pretty large exception was made for the topic of chattel slavery.

I addressed this in my post:

Some of you also seem to think that just because Israel failed to understand the full meaning of the golden rule, (or the full meaning of the second greatest commandment), that this somehow means the slavery is an exception to the golden rule (and second greatest commandment.)

Why accept their misunderstanding as the 'true meaning', instead of considering that fact that they didn't 'get it'. Same with divorce and various other things. Christ also specifically corrected things that were once taught in Israel, remember? "You have heard it said... but I tell you now..."

Being permitted to do something does not even mean that God approved or desired it. God hates divorce, and yet, Moses gave Israel permission to divorce their wives. Christ even told us the reason for this: their hearts were hard.

LOL! I got quite the chuckle here. I can think of sane and logical reasons for divorce. Can you think of sane and logical reasons to endorse lifetime chattel slavery? Remember divorce is legal now, for reasons. No sane person is arguing to bring back chattel slavery, in ANY capacity. Seriously tam, is this your argument?

Seriously, POI, are you missing the point?

Israel was given a law - NOT because it was true or because it was what God wanted - but because their hearts were HARD.

God permitted slavery, but also stated that He desired for EVERY YOKE TO BE BROKEN.

God permits chattel slavery, but does not permit so many "lesser" things. Unless you think chattel slavery is "lesser" too?

Are you still missing the point?

Just because something was permitted does not mean it is what God WANTED.


Still waiting on the answers to those questions....


Peace again to you.

[POI]

If you don't deal with ALL of it, there is no meaningful or honest debate/discussion. The FACT is that the example and commandments of Christ leave NO ROOM for someone to enslave another person against their will. You ignore that.

I'm dealing with the entire topic, as it relates to chattel slavery practices as a whole. The OP states exactly what the Bible endorses, regarding THIS topic. If you want to speak about another topic, we can certainly do that in another thread. I'm stating specifically what the Bible endorses, regarding THIS topic of slavery. I'm glad to admit the Bible instructs not to beat them to death. But we know why. The slave is the master's labor, and it would be dumb to instruct killing your own labor. This is why the rules were setup in a specific way to allow for backside beatings. This was written to keep them in line. And later also enforced in the NT, by reinforcing message(s) for slaves to work as hard as they can, especially if the master is a believer.

When you read all verses of the Bible as a whole, in context, it is clear the hierarchy is as follows:

God > Jesus > man > woman > Hebrew male slave > female/foreign/bred slave > livestock > inanimate object

Are you actually asking, "If we ignore the NT and Christ, then a believer can effectively use 'the bible' in support of breeding chattel slaves?"

No, I'm asking you if a slave master can use the Bible to support slave breeding, yes or no? The answer here is yes. Right?

Well it is not all from Him. It is not even all from God. But I still think this is besides the point. If you believed (or argued) that every word was from Him, then how would you reconcile the contradictions? Or the corrections that He made "you have heard it said, but I tell you now..." or "the reason Moses gave you this law is because your hearts were hard..."? Or the fact that God said He desired every yoke to be broken?

The Christian answer here is to whip out some heavy 'apologetics', or spinning. MY answer is that it is all from humans alone, no god here, and contradiction does exist. Which is why I continue to state the Bible has some good, some bad, some ugly, and some contradiction. Case/point, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and Proverbs 30:5 conflicts with Jeremiah 8:8. Maybe this needs its own topic?

1) I would not agree. Christ, Himself, said 'woe to you scribes.' Jeremiah 8:8 (scripture) states that the lying pen of the scribes has handled the law falsely. 2) Christ said that Moses permitted Israel to divorce their wives, but that it was NOT this way from the beginning. He then proceeded to tell them the truth.

1) Which laws are false? Only the ones expressed, like divorce?

2) You seem to express how divorce was not actually desired. Okay, fine, why was slavery ignored?

3) Then why did the Bible not even say at least this much about chattel slavery? Wouldn't you agree that chattel slavery is 'worse' than divorce? The silence is deafening.

I addressed this in my post:

Some of you also seem to think that just because Israel failed to understand the full meaning of the golden rule, (or the full meaning of the second greatest commandment), that this somehow means the slavery is an exception to the golden rule (and second greatest commandment.)

Why accept their misunderstanding as the 'true meaning', instead of considering that fact that they didn't 'get it'. Same with divorce and various other things. Christ also specifically corrected things that were once taught in Israel, remember? "You have heard it said... but I tell you now..."

I already addressed this too. Maybe I need to address it again. This "golden rule" law was already in play, all along. And yet, chattel slavery was endorsed by the same author, the 'almighty.' At best, it's a complete contradiction to compare the two. And at worst, it's what I have explained all through this thread. Which is, differing rules apply to differing groups. See Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 for details, or in the OP. Also, the generals are over-ridden by specifics. The golden rule is general, and the laws for chattel slavery are specific. It would be like stating general theft is illegal, unless...... Que, "Les Miserables". Or, the typical specific exception to the general rue a Catholic will argue for "venerable sin" allowances for a lie. (i.e.) The FBI will lie to a hostage taker to save the victims from murder.

Seriously, POI, are you missing the point? Israel was given a law - NOT because it was true or because it was what God wanted - but because their hearts were HARD.

You skipped my point entirely tam. I trust you and I agree divorce is lesser to chattel slavery in severity, and yet the Bible cares to at least express some caveats to allowing divorce anyways. Since you and I agree chattel slavery is worse than divorce, and the Bible does not even give this large topic at least as much explanation, this leads the reader to surmise that the author did not think enslaving someone, as a chattel slave is as bad as you and I do. And this author was apparently "GOD"

So, to your point, hearts are hard to all "sin", period. We all "sin". The Bible had no problem abolishing "sin", from the jump, even though all hearts are hard to these expressed 'sins'. The conclusion is clear, "God" does not think chattel slavery is all that bad. Otherwise, it would also be a labelled a 'sin'.

Are you still missing the point? Just because something was permitted does not mean it is what God WANTED.

Well, in this case, it was wanted. Allowing chattel slavery, and allowing slave breeding, is a-okay

Still waiting on the answers to those questions....

9th request:

1) Since Jesus has absolutely no problem telling folks what he does not like, why remain silent about such a large topic of chattel slavery?
2) The 'golden rule' was already a thing, prior to Jesus coming onto the scene. And chattel slavery was also introduced as one of the many exceptions to the 'rule'. When Jesus came along, he never denounces 'slavery'. And instead, some NT author(s) further endorse 'slavery' practices.
3) Is it possible you carry a large cognitive dissonance for the Bible? I think you do. It's okay to admit as much. I admit I do so for sometimes protecting my spouse, continuing to eat meat, and some politics.

[POI]

And this may come as surprise for you, but for me Jesus is higher authority than you.

Jesus endorses lifetime chattel slavery. I do not. By all means, submit to this higher authority.

[POI]

[Replying to tam in post #281]

While I'm awaiting your other response, here is the answer to your questions:

1) Can you enslave another person if you are supposed to be the LEAST? As I've told you repeatedly now, the Bible offers some good stuff. But it also offers other stuff, like contradiction. In my last reply, I also re-emphasized the bottom of the OP, about the generals being over-taken by specifics.

2) Can you enslave another person (or their children) if you supposed to be serving THEM? I've already touched on this too. Differing rules apply to differing groups, genders, regions, and races. When reading the Bible, in all its given context, the hierarchy reads as follows:

God > Jesus > man > woman > Hebrew male slave > female/foreign/bred slave > livestock > inanimate object

3) Can you enslave another person (or their children) if you are supposed to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Again, the specifics outweigh the generals. The 'golden rule' is a general, while the specifics of chattel slavery supersede. Otherwise, the rule would not have been brought forth, which clearly violates the general "golden rule" otherwise Chattel slavery is one of the many exceptions. Also, as already stated above and prior, differing rules exist for differing folks and regions. See Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 for details.

4) Did Christ force anyone to serve Him? Nope. I never claimed Jesus did. But he clearly endorses chattel slavery practices. And in those given "laws", women and bred offspring have no say in the matter. The fathers of the daughters do, as well as the slave masters of the bred offspring do.

5) Did Christ enslave anyone against their will? Already addressed above.

6) If your answer is no, and it can only be no, how are you following His example if you enslave someone (and/or their children)? If you force others to be your slaves? Easy, see my response(s) above It's also called contradiction, with a large mix of Christian apologetics/spin.

7) These are not rhetorical questions. You don't have to answer them publicly, but I don't know how you answer them honestly and still think you can enslave others and follow Christ at the same time. A believer CAN use the Bible to keep chattel slaves, and breed them, because these practices are endorsed in the Bible. I've explained why. And since Jesus has no problem voicing his opinions, and cared not to abolish such practices, it's aces in Jesus' book.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's another aspect to this 'play nice' command which pretty much fails in the OT and has to relate to the NT and exhortations of Jesus, though Bible apologists won't mind if people can suppose it excuses the nastiness and vileness of the OT.

But Jesus is not nice. Not nice at all. His snappishness towards the well - meaning Peter is unforgivable; his abuse of hospitality when invited to dinner is reprehensible, and frankly his disturbance in the temple was fully deserving being nailed up - at least in the mores of the time. Since Jesus (as I said) came across slaves and slavery more than once, his failure to ensure that none of his followers made a bad mistake, like looking at a laydee and thinking Qowow or holding onto your last dollar when you should put all of it into the collecting tray, to whit owning chattel slaves, his failure to warn against that even once makes it pretty darn clear to me, folks.

Jesus, and thus Christianity was fine with Chattel slavery. And the general golden rule and play nice stuff does not do more than pose the question that has to be answered 'No', Jesus may have known that Slaves didn't like being slaves, but so long as they converted, their slave status was not worth a mention. That is why post 19th c human morals are better than Biblical.

[POI]

Jesus, and thus Christianity was fine with Chattel slavery.

True. And where tam is concerned, she shoots herself in the foot. Tam states the Bible offers up additional explanation as to why divorce is permitted in the Bible, even though divorce is deemed "bad". Well, okay then.... By this rationale, chattel slavery should then receive a much larger declaimer in the Bible, since tam would agree that chattel slavery is worse than divorce. And yet, all that is offered, in the Bible entire, is mere instruction on how to perform the chattel slavery. No caveats or qualifiers expressed, like it does for divorce. We can also think of many reasons why divorce should remain a legal process. I doubt anyone could think of a single reason why lifetime chattel slavery should remain a legal process. This alone is damning to tam's position.

[otseng]

And this may come as surprise for you, but for me Jesus is higher authority than you.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid the personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, and this is not a comment on Moderation, but our pal's point is a rhetorical one. Even Theological...and i'll have to check back but obviously it is dismissive rather than abusive. It is like appeal to Authority. It is a question, then, of whether the Authority of Jesus is accepted. The Fallacy comes when an authority on - say - forensic medicine or aircraft design is asked for their opinion about what to do with the gender debate or North Korea. They are not any more an authority in those areas than I am.

So whether Jesus as an authority is anything more than any other poster here, requires that the Authority is accepted.

And since that is not a Given, it is yet more dismissal from our pal without any good reason other than Faithclaims. 'Jesus' authority is paramount'.

Yes, it was here

And this also is an exact rule:

Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matt. 7:12

And this may come as surprise for you, but for me Jesus is higher authority than you./quote]

Using Jesus' supposed Authority to slap down and query is of course irrelevant and darn near abusive.


But the point is whether the Golden rule means that the bible does not and cannot approve slavery - against consent at least. The thing is whether the golden rule and other play nice exhortations wipes out the bad things in the Bible.

Clearly not. Even in the NT Jesus making the teachers of the law look silly by flooring them in front of others is not what he would want them to do to him. So the golden rule ideal does not overwhelm what happens in normal life and slavery was a feature of normal life and Paul at least knew that slaves did not like it. It was not Voluntary. Yet they did it and Jesus did not specifically say "He that owns chattel slaves cannot be my follower" and that adds up to accepting chattel slavery in the NT every bit as much as in the OT.

And yet again, the attempt to escape from a Biblical fail, fails.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's actually a nice point. But let me put this to you, with the slaves in the old Confederacy, one thing the owners did was see they became Christian, so does that mean they weren't thus lifetime chattel slaves? I don't think that argument would wash.

It is interesting why did the Christians think they have the rights Hebrews had. Did they think they are Hebrews?

So yes, If i had a gun to my head I'd say that anyone who professed the Hebrew faith and claimed descent from Abraham - whether they lived in foreign countries, like Egypt or Italy- were Hebrews.

Thank you.

Luke 3.8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father. For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
... ....It is as impossible as a square circle...

Square circle is not impossible and I don't think it is not possible for God to do what is told in the Bible.

Well, this is what is known as a logical impossibility.

You may have heard the infamous remark 'If the bible said that 2+ 2 = 5, I would not say the Bible was wrong but try to think how it could be right".

Now where i weighed in on this was whether God can make a rock so big he cannot lift it.Or make a square circle. I said that God cannot be said to be non - omnipotent because he can't do logical impossibilities.

But aside from that it is not possible to make a person out of - dust, say - and claim he is a descendant of Abraham. He can't be because the line of descent was not there, and cannot be. I don't know whether you are trying to invoke quantum - woo or alternate universes, but the plain statement there is as false as saying that there can be a square circle.

Of course, God can fake it and insist that it be accepted, but it is not true, nevertheless, no matter what you may say.

[1213]

....But aside from that it is not possible to make a person out of - dust, say - and claim he is a descendant of Abraham....

That depends on how a descendant of Abraham is defined. If it would for example go by genetics, I don't see why it would not be possible.

...as false as saying that there can be a square circle.

It requires acknowledging the third dimension, which may be supernatural for some. But, here is the guide how to do it:

1. A straight line from the point 0,0,0 (x,y,z) to the point 10,0,0.
2. Curved line from point 10,0,0 to point 10,10,0 through point 10,5,5.
3. A straight line from point 10,10,0 to point 0,10,0.
4. Curved line from point 0,10,0 to point 0,0,0 through point 0,5,-5.