"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]

...This is why they were whipped on the back side. Complete impunity was granted for this sort of beatings. ...

If you ignore the love your neighbor part, you could do that to anyone, not only to slaves.

I've ignored absolutely nothing. Ex. 21 restricts the eyes and teeth specifically, for beating your slaves. Each given law is specific and distinctive from group to group. As you ignored in my prior response about Hebrews verses non-Hebrews, men verse women and children, volunteer females versus females born into slavery, etc.... Each and every instance has a differing ruleset.

What is being ignored, is your acknowledgement to the obvious. The Bible condones chattel slavery.

Third request. Why are you okay with these given rules for chattel slavery?

[POI]

Oftentimes people see what they want to see. Or what others have trained them to see.

I think you may be speaking about yourself here. I carry no cognitive dissonance here. But maybe you do? We shall see how this pans out...? My position is that the Bible mentions some good things, some bad things, some strange things, and some contradictory things. Would you agree? So far, your prior argument was that basically, if the verse looks 'bad' or other, it's an error, and not from the almighty.

Did it ever? Maybe.

Does it still? No.

Correction.

Did it ever? YES

Does it still? YES

No. Not unless you ignore Christ. Not just His words, but also the example He left for us and told us to follow. He did not enslave anyone, nor does He even force anyone to serve or follow Him. If we ARE following Him, however, we must do the same. He even said to make ourselves the LEAST... and to serve OTHERS. How can you enslave someone (against their will or not) if you have made yourself LESS than them? How can you enslave someone if you are supposed to be serving THEM?

Of course there is also 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'... and love others as yourself.

It is very simple.

I addressed this at the bottom of the OP, and many times there-after. Going in circles here... Also, the 'golden rule' was already a thing in Leviticus 19 anyways. And yet, the ruleset for chattel slavery was still given. Jesus merely mentions the already stated 'golden rule' again. And yet, Jesus says nothing to abolish the already given rules, which were given in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. This means these given exceptions for chattel slavery continue. Otherwise, being that Jesus apparently has the word of the law, he would have mentioned to no longer allow humans to do so. He chose not to. Which is where you will chime in and say the scribes were wrong here, and that is not what Jesus endorses. Well, isn't that convenient?



He remained silent. Which means he was still a-okay with them, obviously. As I already told you, Jesus had no problem telling folks what he does not like.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Oftentimes people see what they want to see. Or what others have trained them to see.

I think you may be speaking about yourself here. I carry no cognitive dissonance here. But maybe you do? We shall see how this pans out...? My position is that the Bible mentions some good things, some bad things, some strange things, and some contradictory things. Would you agree? So far, your prior argument was that basically, if the verse looks 'bad' or other, it's an error, and not from the almighty.

My argument has been that if something is in conflict with Christ (the Truth and Image and Word of God), then that verse is in error (or our understanding of that verse is in error.)

Did it ever? Maybe.

Does it still? No.

Correction.

This is not a correction. This is simply a disagreement.

But instead of going in circles, why don't you go back one page and answer the same questions posed to Transponder:

viewtopic.php?p=1157620#p1157620


Peace again.

[POI]

My argument has been that if something is in conflict with Christ (the Truth and Image and Word of God), then that verse is in error (or our understanding of that verse is in error.)

Yes, and as I already pointed out, your argument is completely flawed. How do you know what this 'Christ' even said, and what this 'Christ' did not say? Remember, the entire set of statements and claims are from the same collection of books, for which none of it was directly authored by a Jesus anyways. Hence, your starting point is the exact opposite, a non-starter. There exists no "Hi, I'm Jesus and I approve this message" statement

Thus, as I stated prior, 'how convenient.' Anything you deem 'bad', or other, did not come from Jesus. Your argument falls apart, before it even starts. We do not know which statements are from Jesus, if any? All we have are the pages of the Bible, which derives from decades of oral traditions, and eventually transcribed, by anonymous folks, to paper.

My argument is that the Bible 1) endorsees lifetime chattel slavery and 2) also endorses slave breeding. The OP states why. You have offered absolutely nothing to challenge these two premises.

This is not a correction. This is simply a disagreement.

You can call it whatever you wish. But the receipts are still there. The Bible absolutely endorses lifetime chattel slavery as well as slave breeding. I'm sorry this makes you uncomfortable. Like I stated, the Bible is a mix of good, bad, ugly, weird stuff, contradiction, other. I accept all of it, where-as you instead spin the parts which do not suit your fancy.

But instead of going in circles, why don't you go back one page and answer the same questions posed to Transponder:

I will let Transponder handle business. Why don't you instead answer my already directed observations and questions to you? (i.e.):

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.

[1213]

We did this before. Let the Hebrews, then or now, decide who is a Hebrew and who is not....

Ok, if you can't answer to the question, then I go by the idea that everyone who goes by Hebrew rules, is a Hebrew, which means all the slaves in Israel would have been also Hebrews. If not, then no one can call themself a Hebrew today.

[1213]

... Why are you okay with these given rules for chattel slavery?

I am ok, with the rules Bible gives, because I think no one could be held as a slave against persons will, if one obeys all the rules in the Bible.

[POI]

I am ok, with the rules Bible gives,

Interesting.... These are the exact rules the Bible gives:

Lifetime chattel slavery endorsement, against their will BTW: Lev. 25:44-46 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."

Slave breeding; tricked, and/or against their will: Exodus 21:4-6 "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. 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 "

Women slavery, also against the woman's will: Exodus 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."

So, I guess you are against these rules the Bible gives, right? If not, then Houstin, we have a problem!

because I think no one could be held as a slave against persons will, if one obeys all the rules in the Bible.

Then you are either a) confused, or, b) ignore some of what the Bible instructs. There exists no option c) here....

[TRANSPONDER]

We did this before. Let the Hebrews, then or now, decide who is a Hebrew and who is not....

Ok, if you can't answer to the question, then I go by the idea that everyone who goes by Hebrew rules, is a Hebrew, which means all the slaves in Israel would have been also Hebrews. If not, then no one can call themself a Hebrew today.

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.

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. So clearly, your effort to make everyone who is subject to 'Hebrew Rules' thereby becomes a Hebrew and so has to be released from slavery, won't wash as even if they grovelled to the god of the hebrews, they were not descended from Abraham and could not be Hebrews.

Nice try but no teddy bear or goldfish.

But of course the NT - writers ..John in this case, I think...gets this wrong.
Matthew 3.9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father. I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

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.

I thought there was a o passage to this effect in John but it appears not. It is not said by John the baptist in Mark, so this looks like a Q addition. But the point is, it is wrong. God cannot raise up children of Abraham from the stones. It is as impossible as a square circle or a second original Mona Lisa. Even a nanoperfect copy will not be the original, nor a perfect copy of an Observant Hebrew would Not be descended from Abraham.

However that is what John supposedly said and nobody made him a teacher of the Law. But the point is that you cannot make foreigners into Hebrews just by ruling over them.

[Difflugia]

And that is pointless, if you can't define who is a Hebrew. Can you tell how to define a Hebrew correctly?

If "Hebrew" is used as a synonym for "Israelite," then it means people that claim descent from one of the thirteen tribes (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher).

If it means the descendents of Eber listed in Genesis 11:10-32, that included all of the descendents of Abraham and Lot. To the Israelites proper, this would add the Moabites, Ammonites, and Ishmaelites.

[TRANSPONDER]

And that is pointless, if you can't define who is a Hebrew. Can you tell how to define a Hebrew correctly?

If "Hebrew" is used as a synonym for "Israelite," then it means people that claim descent from one of the thirteen tribes (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher).

If it means the descendents of Eber listed in Genesis 11:10-32, that included all of the descendents of Abraham and Lot. To the Israelites proper, this would add the Moabites, Ammonites, and Ishmaelites.

As I recall the ones descended from Lot were fit only to be slaves of the Israelites. Descent aside, Edomites who did not believe in the Hebrew god would not be Hebrews and so could be lifetime chattel slaves. But when the Maccabeans converted Edom to Judaism, there was no way they could then be made lifetime slaves, unless the owner gave him a slave as a wife, of course.