"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.'

[POI]

In any attempt at Communication, both sides must agree upon their vocabulary, or there is no communication.

Both Atheists and Christians are content to change Biblical terms, and add new ones, which The Bible does not use- which are never defined, so that neither side knows what they are really talking about.

There are also many differing terms for eating a turd, but I reckon none of them are good

The term "SLAVE" occurs in The 66-Book Bible only twice.

Sure, and the term "SLAVE" is actually used in both the chapters I mentioned in the original post, via Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. Further, in the original post, I already specified how the term "SLAVE" is being used in the context for this discussion. Meaning, the Bible condones both 1) lifetime chattel slavery and 2) slave breeding.

Do you agree?

[POI]

HOW COULD ONE ABUSE A SO-CALLED SLAVE, WHILE KEEPING THESE COMMANDMENTS?

Because... Exodus 21:20-21 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.

Also, I'm still trying to find the given law which states that humans cannot own other humans as property?

[POI]

16. "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to Death."

THIS VERSE WAS SO PROBLEMATIC TO THE BRITISH, THAT THEY INFAMOUSLY PUBLISHED A FAKE BIBLE, WITH THE ENTIRE BOOK OF EXODUS REMOVED. they removed this verse, too:

Let's not even get started as to what was edited, or even further, what was down-right made up. However, the original post does not claim the Bible condones human trafficking. Hence, this is a non-starter...

[marke]

Yes, there were several differences. For one, the underlying cause for slavery in America was not poverty, prisoners of war, prisoners of crime, or national oppression of enemies, but human trafficking, which the Bible condemns.

I'm not talking about human trafficking. The Bible instructs that bred humans shall belong to the slave master.

God's instructions pertaining to OT Jews in reference to OT slavery do not support modern slavery.

[POI]

God's instructions pertaining to OT Jews in reference to OT slavery do not support modern slavery.

I see little to no difference between "OT slavery" verses this perceived "modern slavery".

When the New Testament later becomes a thing, it had the golden opportunity to either a) denounce slavery practices or b) remain completely silent on the topic of slavery.

If a), then not only would you maybe be right, but I never would have raised this topic in the first place. But we both know the Bible does not denounce or express abolition for (humans owning other humans as property.)

If b), then one would assume the New Testament no longer endorses or condones slavery practices. Just like a Christian may assume the New Testament does not endorse or condone any other acts in which the Christian finds immoral. However, the New Testament DOES reinforce slavery. Which means the OT law stands.

We know the Bible condones keeping slaves for life, breeding slaves, beating slaves (with impunity), deeming slaves as property, and instructing that slaves work hard for their masters (and even harder for believing slave masters). So here lies the questions, again:

1) Aside from not being allowed to kill them right away, or to knock out their eye(s) and teeth, how was slavery really any different between Middle Eastern slavery <vs> trans-Atlantic slavery?

2) Why follow a book which does not match your own moral standards?

Please also remember... Jesus had no problem telling folks what he likes and does not like. Jesus does not express abolition for this topic. Jesus would also be fully aware that the topic of slavery is a huge one among humans. And yet, does not abolish it? Logic leads one to then conclude that the New Testament too is a-okay with humans owning other humans as property.

[marke]

God's instructions pertaining to OT Jews in reference to OT slavery do not support modern slavery.

I see little to no difference between "OT slavery" verses this perceived "modern slavery".


Nevertheless, there are major differences.

[POI]

Nevertheless, there are major differences.

I've explained how there are virtually no differences at all. And even if there were, no form of 'slavery' would be considered moral under your own code. Therefore, unless you can post up some kind of an actual alternative case, you have offered a complete nothing burger.

3rd request:

1) Aside from not being allowed to kill them right away, or to knock out their eye(s) and teeth, how was slavery really any different between Middle Eastern slavery <vs> trans-Atlantic slavery?

17th request:

2) Why follow a book which does not match your own moral standards?

[marke]

Nevertheless, there are major differences.

I've explained how there are virtually no differences at all. And even if there were, no form of 'slavery' would be considered moral under your own code. Therefore, unless you can post up some kind of an actual alternative case, you have offered a complete nothing burger.

3rd request:

1) Aside from not being allowed to kill them right away, or to knock out their eye(s) and teeth, how was slavery really any different between Middle Eastern slavery <vs> trans-Atlantic slavery?

17th request:

2) Why follow a book which does not match your own moral standards?

God has never condoned slave ownership by American Christians.

[tam]

Peace to you,

quote=POI post_id=1163904 time=1737917323 user_id=15695]

The 'NT" does not express abolition for the rules made in the "OT". And since Jesus has no problem telling folks what he does not like, this means the prior rules stand forwever.

Hi POI.

Let's start with this comment, because it seems the confusion might be based on this erroneous belief:

A Christian is not under the law (of the OT). That law is part of the old covenant between Israel and God, mediated by Moses. Gentiles were never under that covenant, and those laws never applied to them. Then Christ comes and mediates a new covenant, between anyone -not just Israel- and God. The law of this new covenant is love.

Even if you can't understand that, you can read that those in Christ are not under the law (of the OT):

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Galatians 5:18

If you are led by Christ - aka - if you are following Christ, who is the Spirit, then you are not under the law.

Therefore, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. / For when we lived according to the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, bearing fruit for death. / But now, having died to what bound us, we have been released from the law, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:4-6

We are not under the law (and gentiles were never under the law to begin with); we are under Christ.


Take notice: I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by the law have been severed from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. Galatians 5:2-4

You recall that there was a big hubub about circumcision, correct? Some Jews were telling Gentile men that they had to be circumcised, attempting to put those men under the law. Paul fought against that... and please note what he says here: if they get circumcised, they are obligated now to obey the whole law. In other words, they WEREN'T obligated to obey the whole law BEFORE allowing themselves to be circumcised in accordance with the old law.

For He himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. Ephesians 2:14-15


The law was a tutor until Christ came, but once Christ came, we were to listen to Him. That is what God commands and desires:

"This is my Son, my chosen One. Listen to Him." Luke 9:35, Mark 9:7

(yes or no) Did Jesus have any problem expressing what he does not like?

I would say this is more about expressing what He knew to be true rather than 'likes and dislikes', but:

Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

1 - He did not speak on every matter. Often He withheld out of mercy and love (unless someone asked or continued to push for an answer, like the rich young man who wanted to know what He lacked - Christ didn't volunteer that information, He only spoke because the young man pushed for more).

2 - Some things would have been too hard for people to hear and accept at that time but He would teach them later (John 16:12).

3 - Some questions were asked as a trap to get Him killed and/or discredited (such as the questioning about paying taxes to Caesar.)

4 - Some things Christ spoke of only because people brought the matter up to Him.

(yes or no) Was Jesus aware that prior rules were created which endorsed/condones both lifetime chattel slavery and slave breeding?

That's a loaded question.

Was Christ aware that slavery was permitted in the law?

I'm guessing yes.

(yes or no) Did Jesus remain silent in regard to all "slavery" laws in which were already in place?

He did not. His words, commands, and example speak against the enslavement of others. You want there to have been a specific statement with 'slavery' included in the wording, and you think that without this, it means He endorsed it. But we can see from other things that this is not true.

For example:

He did not specifically say "do not stone adulterous women", but He made His point with His words and example.

When a woman was brought to Him after being caught in the act of adultery, men asked Him what He thought about the law which stated such women should be stoned. He did not come out and state "Moses and/or the law was wrong." He actually didn't answer them at all, until they continued to press Him. Then He said, "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone."

His words saved her life from the mob, and He showed us what we should be doing by His words and example:

"Neither do I condemn you", He says to her once the crowd left. He was the only person there who COULD have thrown that first stone, being without sin, Himself... yet He did not. He showed mercy and forgiveness. He showed us what WE should be doing without ever coming out and directly stating "You should not stone adulterous women."

(yes or no) Would Jesus already be aware that "slavery" would become a very hot topic in the future?

As with other things, sure.

But let's take a look at that shall we. Remember He DID speak about divorce and remarriage, specifically. How many people who claim to be Christian still get divorced and remarried for reasons other than adultery? He said bless and do not curse; how many people curse instead of bless? How many people have been executed, despite His example with the adulterous woman? How many people refuse to help the poor and homeless, even spitting on them (figuratively), despite His command to GIVE to the one in need?

It is clear Jesus is logically okay with the laws in which were already put into place. Otherwise, he would have made, even minimal efforts, to express his disdain for prior given slavery laws, as expressed in the Torah.

He did say that the scribes had mishandled the law, did He not? He even said 'woe to you, scribes and teachers of the law.'
He also said that some laws were given because of the hard hearts of the people, did He not?

Make yourself the least one.
Set the oppressed free and break every yoke.
In ALL things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Love your neighbor and also your enemy.
Love others as Christ loved you.
Serve others as Christ served you.

All Jesus would have had to say is one line. Such as... (i.e.) -- "Owning another human as slave property is now and forever an abomination." Done! Since this is not the case, I stand by my position given above.

You are standing by your position regardless of the evidence against it. But you cannot enslave another person against their will while also listening to the commands that Christ set out above.

Whoever taught you this is just making stuff up.

Using the Bible, do you honestly think the rules are equal for all humans?

What does that have to do with the golden rule? Remember, Christ said 'In EVERYTHING, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Yes, slavery was permitted in Israel. But just because the law permitted something does not mean that God wanted it or even approved. At one time, allowances had been made for the hard-hardheartedness of the people. This is a fact.

The 'NT" does not express abolition for the rules made in the "OT". And since Jesus has no problem telling folks what he does not like, this means the prior rules stand forwever.

Hopefully, you (and/or others) can see now that this position is incorrect.

Slavery might also have been permitted to provide a means of survival for some, since it could save the life of a person and give them a home when they might otherwise have died or been killed.

Please tell me this not actually the best option Jesus could come up with? Lifetime chattel slavery and/or slave breeding is the best solution?

Just because something is permitted doesn't mean the person permitting it came up with it, does it?

A person could even give themselves willingly to another person out of love; in which case there is no reason to speak against it. Christ made HIMSELF a slave, a least one, and willingly gives His will over to His Father, out of love. And in turn, out of love, God has given His Son all authority, the highest position (except over God Himself of course.)

As a chattel slave for life?

Christ did give Himself as a slave for life. He died, remember?

But even after his resurrection, He continues to do the will of His Father. Again, out of love.

The apostles and others who belong to Christ, from the NT, made themselves 'slaves of Christ' as well, not because they were forced, but out of love. It is all about love - and love IS the law of the new covenant, under Christ, mediated by Him.

This is where you are being very very loose with the term 'slave'. I doubt the allowed slavery practices, in which the Bible condones, is the same as following Jesus

I'm not being loose with it. If you want to talk about 'slavery' in the bible, the choice of giving oneself out of love, is part of that. This is why I qualify the slavery you are talking about as 'enslavement; something done to someone against their will.'



Hopefully there is enough food for thought for now.


Peace again to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

A different type of slavery but slavery nonetheless.