A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

[POI]

Taken from "1213" --> http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Owning_slaves.html

Notably, the quote below:

Owning slaves?

According to the Old Testament, peoples at least had right to own slaves. Many wonder, is that same right also valid for today’s disciples of Jesus.

1) Jesus didn’t directly deny owning slaves. So maybe it can be taught that it is valid right today also. However Jesus taught to do same to others that you want others to do to you. Therefore, if you don’t want yourself to be slave, don’t keep others in that position.

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

3) It is also good to notice that disciples of Jesus shouldn’t consider themselves superior to others. If we are all brothers and sisters, how could we keep other as a slave? Rather we should be servants to each other.

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

My response, thus far:

1) You are right, Jesus never tells humans that slavery is wrong. Instead, He looks to endorse the following two Bible passages A) and B):

A) Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Col. 3:22-24)

B) All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves. (1 Tim. 6:1-2)

A) This massage tells the slave to remain subservient, work as hard as one can; even when the master is away. This way, God will be proud of you, via the slave.

B) Respect your slave master. If the master happens to be a Christian, respect them even more.

As you can see, Jesus appears not to be against slavery at all. In fact, He condones such practices.

2) If this were the case for all humans, (the free and the enslaved), then Jesus would not have endorsed instructions for slavery.

3) Please remember the 'golden rule' was already expressed in the OT (i.e.) "you shall love your neighbor as yourself"(Lev. 19:18). Either never speak about the topic of slavery at all, or, tell the Bible readers that slavery is 'wrong'. Instead, the OT already instructs on how you may obtain slaves, how you may beat your slaves, and informs the reader that the slave master can own the slave for life, and also treat them as their property for life. The NT then merely reinforces such OT instruction.

Question(s) for debate:

Why didn't Jesus just abolish slavery practices, or never mention slavery at all? Seems rather confusing, to have left what He left in the NT Bible....?

Answer (post #401)

I'd say that the matter is clear. The OT does refer to chattel slavery - for foreigners. The Bible gives rules (attempting to be fair, no denial) for Jews enslaving others. It does not look like God, knowing that slavery is going to be a no- no in the age when his religion is user scrutiny, thought that he should make it clear that it was wrong. It looks like God thought it was ok, within limits. Paul gave it a thumbs -up and Jesus at least by not commenting, seems to be unaware that it is going to be one of the worst human crimes in modern times.

Thus, it is one more reason to believe the Bible, cover to cover...as the word of men of the time. And that's all it is. It is not even a valid guide to life- advice, morals or social conduct. It is, like any other book, judged by human moral standards, and I can prove it. If Christians did not judge the Bible by human moral codes, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[theophile]

Why didn't Jesus just abolish slavery practices, or never mention slavery at all? Seems rather confusing, to have left what He left in the NT Bible....?

Slavery is a major concern of Jesus' ministry, it just goes by a different name: servanthood. That's what Jesus identifies as: a servant. So he doesn't abolish it because why would he abolish what he is and calls us to be?

Rather than abolishing slavery he would transform it into servanthood.

Interesting take... Are some of these now newly defined 'servants' still to be kept for life, as property, and beaten with virtual impunity, by their masters; or not?

No, that doesn't square at all with the idea of love your neighbor and servanthood.

Christianity is a slave morality (thanks Nietzsche), but as such it also calls masters to become slaves (/servants). For them it is hardest.

If not, I would like to know where Jesus abolishes the instructions given in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25? Seems He only instead reinforces the act of a "human master/human slave" relationship -- (as already identified in the OP).

No, he doesn't reinforce it. Per above, he flips the order on its head. Those who serve the lowest among us are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Those who are the so-called greatest now will struggle to make it through.

[theophile]

Rather than abolishing slavery he would transform it into servanthood.

And a rose by any other name . . . .


.

No. The slavery you're talking about and the servanthood that Jesus showed us and called us to are not the same thing. There's no whips or abrogation of freedom in Christian servanthood.

Why do you think Christianity took off with the slaves and servants of the world? It speaks to them. It doesn't prescribe continued oppression but would rather turn the current order on its head. The lowest become the greatest kind of thing.

Jesus doesn't need to say the words you're looking for. His whole ministry is a testament to it.

[JehovahsWitness]

"Virtual impunity is not impunity." This response is nonsense.

No, its a statement of fact. Virtually means nearly or almost; so if a man "virtually" got away with robbing a bank, in English that means he didn't get away ie. he got caught. So to say someone went virtually unpunished means they were in fact punished (which I suspect is the exact opposite to what you wish to say).


UNPUNISHED OR UNAVENGED


The context of Exodus 21 verse 21 indicates what is under discussion is the death penalty. The Hebrew word here used for "punished" literally means avenged. Under Hebrew law the price for unlawful killing was ... death. Arguably then the passage is saying you wont be executed, not necessarily "You wont face any sanction"



The passage was not implying someone guilty of beating one's slave to death escaped ALL punishment but only that the death penalty would not be demanded if unintentional manslaughter could be established. Since the death of a slave represented financial losses, the loss of one's good reputation, and tribal elders had the authority to impose other punitive restrictions, one could arguably propose that at the very least, the self inflicted consequences of his action, could well be considered punishment enough.

Furthermore since such action clearly violated divine law (see Leviticus 19:18 ) the wrongdoer still faced divine retribution, the worst punishment of all.

CONCLUSION: Someone who unintentionally beat his slave so severely that they died after a specific period might not face the death penalty but it would be premature to conclude he faced absolutely no punishment, as in no legal, social or religious consequences for his actions, since no scripture states that had to be the case

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

Did slave owners in biblical times escape absolutely ALL punishment if unintentional manslaughter could be established?
viewtopic.php?p=1078563#p1078563

Did God ORDER absolute immunity for slavebeaters ?
viewtopic.php?p=1079551#p1079551

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[JehovahsWitness]

(Paraphrased) "Sure, the Bible tells it's readers that beating your slaves, (just short of immediate death or removing their eyes and teeth), is not to be punished. But that doesn't mean the Bible actually 'condones/allows/sanctifies' everything else; aside from those three exempt traits of (immediate death, missing eyes, and missing teeth)."

Is this your argument, in a nutshell?

No my arguments in a nutshell are in my POSTS. I dont usually request help to word my thoughts.

Thanks anyway,


JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

LOVE & SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... ABOLITION

[POI]

Why didn't Jesus just abolish slavery practices, or never mention slavery at all? Seems rather confusing, to have left what He left in the NT Bible....?

Slavery is a major concern of Jesus' ministry, it just goes by a different name: servanthood. That's what Jesus identifies as: a servant. So he doesn't abolish it because why would he abolish what he is and calls us to be?

Rather than abolishing slavery he would transform it into servanthood.

speaking about the sanction
Interesting take... Are some of these now newly defined 'servants' still to be kept for life, as property, and beaten with virtual impunity, by their masters; or not?

No, that doesn't square at all with the idea of love your neighbor and servanthood.

So how do you reconcile the 'golden rule' with the Verses in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25? Please recall the 'golden rule' was already presented in the OT Bible as well; as per the original post observation.

Christianity is a slave morality (thanks Nietzsche), but as such it also calls masters to become slaves (/servants). For them it is hardest.

I'm speaking about the Bible's instructions for (human) slave masters to own (humans) slaves as property. You are trying to change the subject.

If not, I would like to know where Jesus abolishes the instructions given in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25? Seems He only instead reinforces the act of a "human master/human slave" relationship -- (as already identified in the OP).

No, he doesn't reinforce it. Per above, he flips the order on its head. Those who serve the lowest among us are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Those who are the so-called greatest now will struggle to make it through.

This topic is not about what happens to you, after death. This topic is about how the Bible gives instruction for (human) slave masters to own (human) slaves.

[POI]

"Virtual impunity is not impunity." This response is nonsense.

No, its a statement of fact. Virtually means nearly or almost; so if a man "virtually" got away with robbing a bank, in English that means he didn't get away ie. he got caught. So to say someone went virtually unpunished means they were in fact punished (which I suspect is the exact opposite to what you wish to say).

You are too too too funny

Instead of acknowledging that the Bible instructs no punishment, aside from these three expressed caveats, you wish to instead go over the minutiae of the word "virtually" Thus, as you have expressed above, being "almost" exempt from any "wrong-doing"-- just as long as you steer clear of three specific outcomes.

The way I'm using this term, I (again), mean that besides (immediate death, a missing eye, or a missing tooth), you are completely exempt from punishment. Hence, aside from these three afflictions, you are absolved by God.

The context of Exodus 21 verse 21 indicates what is under discussion is the death penalty. The Hebrew word here used for "punished" literally means avenged. Under Hebrew law the price for unlawful killing was ... death. Arguably then the passage is saying you wont be executed, not necessarily "You wont face any sanction"

I'm not necessarily speaking about killing your slave. I'm speaking about the right to BEAT your slave with "virtual" impunity. --- Provided you do not immediately kill them, pop an eye out, or knock out their teeth

The passage was not implying someone guilty of beating one's slave to death escaped ALL punishment but only that the death penalty would not be demanded if unintentional manslaughter could be established. Since the death of a slave represented financial losses, the loss of one's good reputation, and tribal elders had the authority to impose other punitive restrictions, one could arguably propose that at the very least, the self inflicted consequences of his action, could well be considered punishment enough.

Common sense... The slave is also labeled the master's money. Why would you get rid of your own money, by trying to killi them?

Just make your money work the hardest for you that it can. You can beat them. Just don't kill them immediately, or take out their eyes or teeth....

CONCLUSION: Someone who unintentionally beat his slave so severely that they died after a specific period might not face the death penalty but it would be premature to conclude he faced absolutely no punishment, as in no legal, social or religious consequences for his actions, since no scripture states that had to be the case

Hahaha. The Bible instructs no punishment, provided they do not die immediately, or their eyes or teeth fall out. In the eye's of God, no crime was then committed. Otherwise, He would state not to - like He mentions not to immediately kill them, or knock out their eyes and teeth. As you already alluded to prior, Jesus was not there to 'govern'. If other's decide to (shun/other) the slave master, because a slave eventually died from infection/other, due to a 'severe' beating, that's their decision(s)...

[TRANSPONDER]

"Virtual impunity is not impunity." This response is nonsense.

No, its a statement of fact. Virtually means nearly or almost; so if a man "virtually" got away with robbing a bank, in English that means he didn't get away ie. he got caught. So to say someone went virtually unpunished means they were in fact punished (which I suspect is the exact opposite to what you wish to say).

You are too too too funny

Instead of acknowledging that the Bible instructs no punishment, aside from these three expressed caveats, you wish to instead go over the minutiae of the word "virtually" Thus, as you have expressed above, being "almost" exempt from any "wrong-doing"-- just as long as you steer clear of three specific outcomes.

The way I'm using this term, I (again), mean that besides (immediate death, a missing eye, or a missing tooth), you are completely exempt from punishment. Hence, aside from these three afflictions, you are absolved by God.

The context of Exodus 21 verse 21 indicates what is under discussion is the death penalty. The Hebrew word here used for "punished" literally means avenged. Under Hebrew law the price for unlawful killing was ... death. Arguably then the passage is saying you wont be executed, not necessarily "You wont face any sanction"

I'm not necessarily speaking about killing your slave. I'm speaking about the right to BEAT your slave with "virtual" impunity. --- Provided you do not immediately kill them, pop an eye out, or knock out their teeth

The passage was not implying someone guilty of beating one's slave to death escaped ALL punishment but only that the death penalty would not be demanded if unintentional manslaughter could be established. Since the death of a slave represented financial losses, the loss of one's good reputation, and tribal elders had the authority to impose other punitive restrictions, one could arguably propose that at the very least, the self inflicted consequences of his action, could well be considered punishment enough.

Common sense... The slave is also labeled the master's money. Why would you get rid of your own money, by killing them?

Just make your money work the hardest for you that it can. You can beat them. Just don't kill them immediately, or take out their eyes or teeth....

CONCLUSION: Someone who unintentionally beat his slave so severely that they died after a specific period might not face the death penalty but it would be premature to conclude he faced absolutely no punishment, as in no legal, social or religious consequences for his actions, since no scripture states that had to be the case

Hahaha. The Bible instructs no punishment, provided they do not die immediately, or their eyes or teeth fall out. In the eye's of God, no crime was then committed. Otherwise, He would state not to - like He mentions not to immediately kill them, or knock out their eyes and teeth. As you already alluded to prior, Jesus was not there to 'govern'. If other's decide to (shun/other) the slave master, because a slave eventually died from infection/other, that's their decision(s)...

It's rather amusing that these Pilpuls are just the sort of things that Jesus was railing against with healing on the Sabbath and all foods are clean. He said (or the Christians who wrote the gospels - or so I argue) that we should be excellent to one another, not just fuss about whether God would be miffed if slave we whupped over died within two days or whether we should make it three days. Jesus should say : Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye shall own no other human bean as property, chattels or negotiable assets' But not a word. This is tacit evidence that Gospel Jesus is ok with slavery, as all the gospel writers were at the time. "It's the way things were", as the apologists say. Exactly. It is all written by the men of their time. It was not recording words spoken by a dude who had a hot line to God. Not that God wasn't ok with slavery too, from what the OT tells us.

[POI]

"Virtual impunity is not impunity." This response is nonsense.

No, its a statement of fact. Virtually means nearly or almost; so if a man "virtually" got away with robbing a bank, in English that means he didn't get away ie. he got caught. So to say someone went virtually unpunished means they were in fact punished (which I suspect is the exact opposite to what you wish to say).

You are too too too funny

Instead of acknowledging that the Bible instructs no punishment, aside from these three expressed caveats, you wish to instead go over the minutiae of the word "virtually" Thus, as you have expressed above, being "almost" exempt from any "wrong-doing"-- just as long as you steer clear of three specific outcomes.

The way I'm using this term, I (again), mean that besides (immediate death, a missing eye, or a missing tooth), you are completely exempt from punishment. Hence, aside from these three afflictions, you are absolved by God.

The context of Exodus 21 verse 21 indicates what is under discussion is the death penalty. The Hebrew word here used for "punished" literally means avenged. Under Hebrew law the price for unlawful killing was ... death. Arguably then the passage is saying you wont be executed, not necessarily "You wont face any sanction"

I'm not necessarily speaking about killing your slave. I'm speaking about the right to BEAT your slave with "virtual" impunity. --- Provided you do not immediately kill them, pop an eye out, or knock out their teeth

The passage was not implying someone guilty of beating one's slave to death escaped ALL punishment but only that the death penalty would not be demanded if unintentional manslaughter could be established. Since the death of a slave represented financial losses, the loss of one's good reputation, and tribal elders had the authority to impose other punitive restrictions, one could arguably propose that at the very least, the self inflicted consequences of his action, could well be considered punishment enough.

Common sense... The slave is also labeled the master's money. Why would you get rid of your own money, by killing them?

Just make your money work the hardest for you that it can. You can beat them. Just don't kill them immediately, or take out their eyes or teeth....

CONCLUSION: Someone who unintentionally beat his slave so severely that they died after a specific period might not face the death penalty but it would be premature to conclude he faced absolutely no punishment, as in no legal, social or religious consequences for his actions, since no scripture states that had to be the case

Hahaha. The Bible instructs no punishment, provided they do not die immediately, or their eyes or teeth fall out. In the eye's of God, no crime was then committed. Otherwise, He would state not to - like He mentions not to immediately kill them, or knock out their eyes and teeth. As you already alluded to prior, Jesus was not there to 'govern'. If other's decide to (shun/other) the slave master, because a slave eventually died from infection/other, that's their decision(s)...

It's rather amusing that these Pilpuls are just the sort of things that Jesus was railing against with healing on the Sabbath and all foods are clean. He said (or the Christians who wrote the gospels - or so I argue) that we should be excellent to one another, not just fuss about whether God would be miffed if slave we whupped over died within two days or whether we should make it three days. Jesus should say : Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye shall own no other human bean as property, chattels or negotiable assets' But not a word. This is tacit evidence that Gospel Jesus is ok with slavery, as all the gospel writers were at the time. "It's the way things were", as the apologists say. Exactly. It is all written by the men of their time. It was not recording words spoken by a dude who had a hot line to God. Not that God wasn't ok with slavery too, from what the OT tells us.

Right. The most logical conclusion is that this entire book, (which includes instructions for "slavery"), is written by men, and nothing more. Just like every other expressed/claimed holy text. To argue otherwise defies Occam's Razor.

[JehovahsWitness]

You can beat them.

DOES THE BIBLE SAY YOU "MAY BEAT YOUR SLAVES"?


Absolutely not; those words"You may beat your slave" "You have the right to BEAT your slave" are not in the Hebrew bible. Those that conclude such an inference are ignoring both the context and the principles of the Mosaic law.










RELATED POSTS

Is not demanding the death penalty for all beatings of slave "effectively" de facto permission ?
viewtopic.php?p=1078846#p1078846

Does the Hebrew bible condone beating one's slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078537#p1078537

Does the Hebrew bible say owners may beat their slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078598#p1078598

Does the Hebrew bible say it's OK to beat a slave ?
viewtopic.php?p=1078758#p1078758

Did God ORDER absolute immunity for slavebeaters ?
viewtopic.php?p=1079551#p1079551

Does the Hebrew bible instruct HOW beat one's slave?
viewtopic.php?p=1078725#p1078725

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[JehovahsWitness]

In the eye's of God, no crime was then committed.

WHAT ARE GODS FEELINGS ABOUT SLAVEBEATING?

LEVITICUS 19:18 b - Aramaic Bible in Plain English

.... love your fellow man as yourself. I AM LORD JEHOVAH.

If there was one law that underpinned the Mosaic "Constitution " providing the basis and overriding principle for all other laws that governed civic behaviour it is found in Leviticus 19:18b. Jesus pointed to it as the second Greatest law in scripture. Just as the American constitution provides the basis for that which can and cannot be established in law (recognising certain inalienable rights), so Leviticus 19:18 framed all legal, social and religious behaviour. In short, for the ancient Israelites (who lived under a theocratic rather than a secular system), Gods point of view of how citizens should treat each other was enshrined in their law.

SEVERELY BEATING ONE'S SLAVE WAS UNLOVING AND THUS ILLEGAL

It is therefore absolutely inaccurate to suggest that "in the eyes of God" beatings ones slave, even if one did escape sanction, was considered acceptable, it was not; it was illegal. What punishment could or could not be applied depended on the circumstances and severity of the crime, but that a crime has been committed is self evident.

WORSHIP

The foreigner could worship the same God as the Israelite, there was not prohibition in this regard. All citizens were to rest on the SABBATH so they could concentrate on spiritual things and God communicated his good will towards people of different origins if they wished to approach Him. Note the following in the bible book of NUMBERS

And if a foreign resident is residing with you, he should also prepare the Passover sacrifice to Jehovah. He should do so according to the statute of the Passover and its set procedure. There should exist one statute for you, both for the foreign resident and for the native of the land.’” - Numbers 19:14

JW




LAW OF LOVE

Does the bible indicate how God would have felt about slaveowners beatings their slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078599#p1078599

Did the principle of loving one's neighbour EXCLUDE foreign slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1079896#p1079896

Was there really "one law" (one standard of law) for all people that lived in ancient Israel?
viewtopic.php?p=1079612#p1079612

How can there be one LAW if different rules apply to different people?
viewtopic.php?p=1079662#p1079662

Could the "Law of Love" found at Leviticus 19:18b, co-exist in a system that allows for lifelong slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1079905#p1079905

Do all slaves necessarily desire to be set free?
viewtopic.php?p=1080618#p1080618

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

LOVE & SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING