"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]

A Christian is not under the law (of the OT).

Then the Christian can ignore the 10 Commands, as well as the verse Matthew 5:18:

"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

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

It's very simple here Tam... The Bible abolishes murder, theft, trespassing, etc etc etc. But does not do so for humans owning other humans as property, which is a very large topic for human kind.

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.

1. A simple one-liner is all it would take to have avoided this topic entirely. "Thou shall not own another human as slave property." Done. It's not like we are speaking about whether or not it is now okay to eat shellfish.

2. Most/all people lie all the time every day, and yet the Bible has no problem telling humans that lying is wrong. Same goes for trespassing, etc etc etc.... Seems odd he skipped right over a very hot topic issue.

3. Are you saying Jesus was against humans owning other humans as property, but kept his mouth shut because he was worried about mere humans changing his destiny/fate?

4. Jesus did not only issue laws or teachings when asked, he actively taught and preached about God's law and its fulfillment, often proactively and in various settings. While he did respond to questions and engage in discussions, his ministry involved a broader scope of teaching, including the Sermon on the Mount, where he outlined principles for living a righteous life. Apparently, slavery never made the list... This must mean he was a-okay with it...

That's a loaded question.

No Tam, it's a true statement. The Bible condones both actions.

Was Christ aware that slavery was permitted in the law? I'm guessing yes.

Hmmm? Lying and trespassing are not okay, in which we all mostly still violate all the time.

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.

Plain and simple.... Please tell me where Jesus tells folks that humans are not to any longer own other humans as property for life?

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:

You see, Jesus spoke about stoning. This is why I'm not bringing up the stoning of women. You do not think slavery, a likely common action - as the Bible had to speak about it specifically and all, was ever brought to his attention?

As with other things, sure.

Then Jesus was negligent to ignore it.

But let's take a look at that shall we. Remember He DID speak about divorce and remarriage, specifically.

Yes. And I've already spoke to this many times now. He ignored slavery. The 'hardening of hearts' is irrelevant. We are all deemed perpetual sinners against all the "Biblical laws" regardless.

But you cannot enslave another person against their will while also listening to the commands that Christ set out above.

Yes you can. The slave has no say in the matter. The slave master does. And the Bible states the master may buy slaves and keep them as property for life. Sorry Tam. It's not up to the slave.

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."

I already spoke about this on the bottom of the OP.

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

Was Jesus the law, and a teacher or not? ==> Condoning chattel slavery and slave breeding was the best solution for some humans?

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 story of Jesus is a curious one... If Jesus already knew he was going to ultimately live forever, and also be the rule maker for all, and also expect all to worship him or otherwise suffer an unwanted fate, a few fleeting years of perceived suffering -- in which are the rules Jesus made for himself in the first place, don't seem like too much of a sacrifice now do they?

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.'

The version of slavery I'm discussing is specifically expressed in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. You know, the type of slavery where one is deemed property for life, beaten with impunity, bred as lifetime slave(s), and instructed to work hard, and even harder for believing slave masters.

Hopefully there is enough food for thought for now.

Yes. More than ever...........

[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?

God has never condoned slave ownership by American Christians.

The Bible never abolishes any slavery.

4th 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?

18th request:

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

[1213]

Yes, he doesn't have to let the slave go.

Correct. This means slaves can be kept against their will.

Only if he doesn't love his neighbor as himself.

[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.

The Bible never abolishes any slavery.

4th 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?

18th request:

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

The Bible does not instruct American Christians to adhere to OT Jewish laws and customs regarding slaves which Jesus never endorsed for American Christians.

[POI]

Yes, he doesn't have to let the slave go.

Correct. This means slaves can be kept against their will.

Only if he doesn't love his neighbor as himself.

No 1213. I've explained, ad nauseam, and you fail to understand. Heck, I even explained it at the bottom of the original post. I guess it just is what it is....

[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?

God has never condoned slave ownership by American Christians.

The Bible never abolishes any slavery.

4th 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?

18th request:

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

The Bible does not instruct American Christians to adhere to OT Jewish laws and customs regarding slaves which Jesus never endorsed for American Christians.

The Bible specifically addresses this in Leviticus 25.

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.

5th 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?

19th request:

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

[1213]

Yes, he doesn't have to let the slave go.

Correct. This means slaves can be kept against their will.

Only if he doesn't love his neighbor as himself.

No 1213. I've explained, ad nauseam, and you fail to understand. Heck, I even explained it at the bottom of the original post. I guess it just is what it is....

Yes, you have explained, but the rule "love your neighbor as yourself", cannot be explained away, even if you don't like it.

[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.

The Bible never abolishes any slavery.

4th 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?

18th request:

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

The Bible does not instruct American Christians to adhere to OT Jewish laws and customs regarding slaves which Jesus never endorsed for American Christians.

The Bible specifically addresses this in Leviticus 25.

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.

5th 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?

19th request:

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

You have failed to prove God condones Christian ownership of slaves in America.

[benchwarmer]

Yes, he doesn't have to let the slave go.

Correct. This means slaves can be kept against their will.

Only if he doesn't love his neighbor as himself.

No 1213. I've explained, ad nauseam, and you fail to understand. Heck, I even explained it at the bottom of the original post. I guess it just is what it is....

Yes, you have explained, but the rule "love your neighbor as yourself", cannot be explained away, even if you don't like it.

No one is trying to explain it away. THAT is the problem you fail to see. It's an obvious contradiction (unless the slave owners don't mind being bought as slaves and/or beaten as a slave which is an obvious flaw to this 'golden rule').

Look, we get it 1213. You would not own slaves nor beat them. You are a sane person that understands empathy and would treat others kindly. That's not the issue here. The issue is that at some point the God of the Bible thought it was just fine to have laws about owning and beating slaves rather than simply saying "Don't own slaves!".

The 10 commandments are all about how to treat God and others. Jesus distilled them all down to 2. Yet we have many other rules (such as regarding slavery) that also found their way into your scripture. Sorry, you are stuck with it and apparently adamant about defending it somehow. I'm not sure why you can't just realize the obvious fact that those slavery rules were likely the result of human laws, not laws of any loving god.

If a loving god exists, I would assume a simple, clear directive much like what Jesus tried to say in the NT. In my opinion he still flubbed it, but at least it was a lot closer.

Better: "Treat others only as they wish to be treated." "Do the least amount of harm to others and yourself as you can". "Love one another".

In other words don't use your measuring stick on how to treat others (since you may not mind fighting or some level of pain), but use their wishes.

Perhaps an actual god would come up with something even better and more concise. It's a little odd how some modern humans seems to have more compassion than what is portrayed in some parts of the Bible don't you think?

[POI]

You have failed to prove God condones Christian ownership of slaves in America.

This would be like saying the Bible does not condone any other action, in which the Bible does condone, in America. Further, the authors of the Bible were not aware of any future 'America,' as it did not yet exist anyways.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Does Biblical law apply to all, or just the Israeliites?

Yet again, since Jesus does not express 1) abolition for humans owning other humans as slave property, which was established as allowed in the OT, and 2) Jesus had no problem expressing what he does and does not like, 3) Jesus also further reinforces slavery practices without condemning it, 4) and Jesus would also be aware that the topic of a) chattel slavery and b) slave breeding are rather large topics in which Christians do not agree with morally, 5) the NT instructs slaves to work hard, and even harder for believing slave master - (which means the condoning of slave ownership was not limited to believers), then the rules of the OT are cemented forever, as Biblical law.

You have failed to address anything I have brought forth. Likely because you know you cannot, and instead are desperately searching for some sort of a loophole.

5th 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?

19th request:

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