"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.'

[Difflugia]

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.

I forgot about Esau being essentially in the same boat as Ishmael. For most of the Bible, "Hebrew" and "Israelite" were treated as synonyms and I suspect that's what the rules meant. According to at least one tradition, though, Israelite was a proper subset of Hebrew.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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

So then you have no argument.

If you do not know what He said, you cannot claim He had no problem 'telling folks what He does not like."

Thus, as I stated prior, 'how convenient.' Anything you deem 'bad', or other, did not come from Jesus.

Nope. I have no problem with anything He said. What I said is "if something contradicts Him, then it cannot be true or from God."

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.

No, I am posing those questions to you.

Why don't you instead answer my already directed observations and questions to you? (i.e.):

I have. Multiple times in this (and other) threads.

You have not ONCE answered those questions that I have asked you.


Peace again.

[POI]

So then you have no argument.

No tam. I have informed you why (your) specific argument fails. You cannot pick and choose, out of convenience. I've told you, many times now, that the Bible mentions some good, some bad, some ugly, some contradictory., some other. It's all or nothing. The Bible tells the reader it's all inspired. Thus, you need to deal with all of it, and not just discard stuff you do not like.

Nope. I have no problem with anything He said. What I said is "if something contradicts Him, then it cannot be true or from God."

He apparently endorses and/or directly said all of it. You just omit the parts which make you uncomfortable.

No, I am posing those questions to you.

Answer my questions, which I already asked first, then I will be more than happy to address anything, still relevant, of what you ask of Transponder.

I have. Multiple times in this (and other) threads.

Then you should have no problem cutting and pasting those replies here, as I do not recall such answers given? Here are the questions, for which you apparently have supplied prior responses. Please simply cut/paste those responses here

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.

[tam]

Peace to you,

So then you have no argument.

No tam. I have informed you why (your) specific argument fails. You cannot pick and choose, out of convenience. I've told you, many times now, that the Bible mentions some good, some bad, some ugly, some contradictory., some other. It's all or nothing. The Bible tells the reader it's all inspired. Thus, you need to deal with all of it, and not just discard stuff you do not like.

POI, you are discarding what does not suit your argument.
You are the one who said we can't be sure what "Jesus" said.
You said that.

Nope. I have no problem with anything He said. What I said is "if something contradicts Him, then it cannot be true or from God."

He apparently endorses and/or directly said all of it.

You just 100% contradicted yourself:

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

You just omit the parts which make you uncomfortable.

POI, this is what you are doing. You want to omit the things Christ said that do not permit a person to enslave another person, while at the same time, keeping what you think helps your argument.

No, I am posing those questions to you.

Answer my questions, which I already asked first, then I will be more than happy to address anything, still relevant, of what you ask of Transponder.

See, I don't believe you. Because I've answered your questions previously, and I have no problem linking to those posts. But you have not once answered those questions I have asked of you.

They're pretty simple questions. Only one reason I can think that you would refuse to answer them.



Peace again to you.

[POI]

POI, you are discarding what does not suit your argument.
You are the one who said we can't be sure what "Jesus" said.
You said that.

Rinse/repeat: You have completely taken what I said out of context. I deal with all of it. Some of it is good, some bad, some weird, some contradictory, etc... I'm not here to debate the 'good stuff' said. These parts do not belong in a debate forum arena.

You just 100% contradicted yourself:

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

Tam, I'm pointing out why your argument fails. My argument is instead that you have to actually deal with the good, the bad, the ugly, and the contradictory. It all apparently comes from the same source, Jesus. It's pointless to deal with the good though, because there would be no reason for a debate, where 'good' is concerned. So, I mention the bad/contradictory for debate, in which you conveniently state is not from Jesus. You will likely argue that the verses stating that "all scripture is from God" is in error

POI, this is what you are doing. You want to omit the things Christ said that do not permit a person to enslave another person, while at the same time, keeping what you think helps your argument.

Nope, again, I acknowledge all of it. Some of it IS good. It's not all messed up. But mentioning the good really has no place in a debate forum. This is why I go after only the bad, weird, contradictory, other.

See, I don't believe you. Because I've answered your questions previously, and I have no problem linking to those posts. But you have not once answered those questions I have asked of you.

Try me.

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.

They're pretty simple questions. Only one reason I can think that you would refuse to answer them.

Negative. They may not still be relevant, after you actually answer my prior questions to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

POI, you are discarding what does not suit your argument.
You are the one who said we can't be sure what "Jesus" said.
You said that.

Rinse/repeat: You have completely taken what I said out of context. I deal with all of it. Some of it is good, some bad, some weird, some contradictory, etc... I'm not here to debate the 'good stuff' said. These parts do not belong in a debate forum arena.

But you DON'T deal with all of it.

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.

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?

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?

Tam, I'm pointing out why your argument fails. My argument is instead that you have to actually deal with the good, the bad, the ugly, and the contradictory. It all apparently comes from the same source, Jesus. It's pointless to deal with the good though, because there would be no reason for a debate, where 'good' is concerned. So, I mention the bad/contradictory for debate, in which you conveniently state is not from Jesus. You will likely argue that the verses stating that "all scripture is from God" is in error

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.

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

The fact is - being permitted to do something is not the same as being commanded to do it. 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.

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

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..."

POI, this is what you are doing. You want to omit the things Christ said that do not permit a person to enslave another person, while at the same time, keeping what you think helps your argument.

Nope, again, I acknowledge all of it. Some of it IS good. It's not all messed up. But mentioning the good really has no place in a debate forum. This is why I go after only the bad, weird, contradictory, other.

Lol, what?

Then you would simply be accepting NO evidence that refutes your position. How is that conductive to a meaningful debate or even conversation? There is no point in having a conversation when a person refuses to acknowledge relevant parts of the evidence.

Except perhaps to point out to others how the argument is flawed because of this.

See, I don't believe you. Because I've answered your questions previously, and I have no problem linking to those posts. But you have not once answered those questions I have asked of you.

Try me.

No, it is absurd that I should have to keep repeating myself when you won't even attempt to answer long-standing questions.

Your choice, though.


Peace again.

[POI]

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.

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.

This means a slave master CAN use THE BIBLE to legally breed and keep slave offspring. The way in which you want to break away here, is that you will argue (paraphrased) -- "yes, the Bible does mention this, but Jesus does not actually endorse this activity." Before I address your specific argument, you must first acknowledge that the answer to the actual OP question is YES! A believer CAN effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves. Do we at least agree here?

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. This is where the proverbial eyebrow raises. See below, where I speak about the two passages in which you say we agree upon.

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 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. The laws differed from group to group, gender to gender, race to race, and region to region. Funny how such a stated god was also so humanly tribal

The fact is - being permitted to do something is not the same as being commanded to do it.

I do not claim god commands it, per se.... The Bible god thinks chattel slavery a-okay. But WHY? You state Jesus does not think it is a-okay. Most of the modern world does not think it is a-okay. If Jesus is so forward thinking, and he does not think it is a-okay, like most of the globe now abolishes such practices, and Jesus has no issues with speaking truth, why not recommend abolition of such practices in the Bible? It would be just a few words. Remember, Jesus has no problems expressing his views.

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?

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?

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..."

LOL again! "All Scripture is god-breathed", right? This means humans were the mere ghost-writers. What IS written, is what god intended to be written. And what is written, both sanctions chattel slavery, as well as slave breeding.

Then you would simply be accepting NO evidence that refutes your position. How is that conductive to a meaningful debate or even conversation? There is no point in having a conversation when a person refuses to acknowledge relevant parts of the evidence. Except perhaps to point out to others how the argument is flawed because of this.

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Proverbs 30:5 are not verses you ignore, then you would agree with me here

No, it is absurd that I should have to keep repeating myself when you won't even attempt to answer long-standing questions.

What is absurd, is not to simply cut/paste these so-called "zingers", for which I apparently never addressed.

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]

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.

Ok, thank you. I can accept that. That would mean people can't become Israelite or Hebrews. And nowadays no one can prove he is truly a descendant of Eber, which means no one would have the rights given to his descendants.

[1213]

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.

[1213]

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."

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.