"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.'

[tam]

Peace to you,

Topic bump:

The silence is deafening....

These following two statements do not look to have been challenged by Christians:

1) The Bible can be used to endorse chattel slavery.
2) The Bible can be used to endorse slave breeding.

In your post 338 viewtopic.php?p=1159068#p1159068, you said your answers to the questions in post 337 viewtopic.php?p=1159060#p1159060 were NO. Therefore, you would NOT be able to obey the words of Christ AND enslave another person at the same time.

Why then are we still talking about this?


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

1) The specifics outweigh the generals. The 'golden rule' is the general rule. But specifics outweigh general rules, like the expressed caveats for chattel slavery. An analogy would be like a posted speed limit, or a red light, or to always make a complete stop at a stop sign. These would be the general rules. These posted laws do not also apply to some however, like traffic patrol in pursuit or medical/ambulance in route. Some caveats exist. Which are some specifics... Chattel slavery is an endorsed listed caveat, or a specific, to the general 'golden rule'. Further, the golden rule was already expressed, when chattel slavery was also endorsed, in the OT.

WAS... a caveat.

Having a caveat does not mean that it outweighs the general. Having a caveat doesn't even mean it is what God desires (see Isaiah 58:6.) It simply means the caveat was permitted, for whatever reason, even if only for a time. What God truly wants can be known to us by listening to Christ. And Christ said, "In EVERYTHING you do, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Everything leaves no room for a caveat to that rule.


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

[POI]

Christians are taught to trust God whether in slavery themselves or not. That does not mean that God want Christians to support the wicked trafficking in human slaves.

As I stated prior, which you ignored, Jesus has no problem telling folks what he likes and does not like. Slavery is a large topic, and Jesus lets the current rules stand. He merely tells slaves to try harder and not run. It's likely the passages written were endorsed and/or written by slave owners to assure the slaves remain in line.

You also skipped the verse which states this:

"2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers."

The verse above says nothing about instructing the believing slave masters that they are acting in sin.

It is clear the Bible endorses chattel slavery and slave breeding. And nothing in the NT rebukes or denounces the prior instruction alowed.

[POI]

The Bible sanctions beating with impunity, as long as the slave does not die. How does this apply to the "golden rule" in any capacity?

I think I have already shown that is not true. For example:

If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. If he strikes out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
Exod. 21:26-27

I already responded here. A blind slave is a worthless slave. The slave is the master's labor. This is why it was standard issue to whip the slaves on the back. You cannot knock out eye(s) or teeth this way. And whipping them on the back, at will, rendered NO punishment, as long as they did not die.

Also, if the slave could not work, because of the beating, it would be a punishment for the owner who would lose workforce.

Exactly. The master likely only whipped them harder if they were too old to produce any more, or, were no longer productive because of illness or other injuries. Otherwise, whip them just enough to maximize their productivity. The goal was to maximize their slave labor. The Bible was used to assure this was legal.

But, it is true that in Bible there is not really "punishment" for beating.

This is because there IS no punishment for whipping your slaves on the back.

You could even beat your own children, without getting sentence.

Yes. This is another topic. But demonstrates yet another allowance in which many societies no longer tolerate, despite what the Bible endorses.

However, if you live by the golden rule, you don't beat anyone, unless maybe if it is actually the right thing to do.

I've covered this too, extensively. Differing rules apply to differing folks. See post 334 for details.

The owner has by the rules right to keep them, but, if one follows the golden rule, he allows them to go, if they want to go.

Yes, which means your prior statement is false. It is NOT up to the slave at all, in many cases. Further, no one would logically agree to be a lifetime chattel slave. If they receive payment, they would most/all want to leave at year 7 and seek their own support, (and not remain someone else's property for life unless they were mentally ill or something).

[POI]

Why then are we still talking about this?

I told you why in that same post.

Having a caveat does not mean that it outweighs the general.

Well, then we have a possible logical contradiction. How does one reconcile endorsing and/or condoning a) lifetime chattel slavery and b) slave breeding (with the) golden rule?

Having a caveat doesn't even mean it is what God desires

We covered this already when you spoke about 'divorce'. However, God expresses why he sometimes allows divorce anyways, even though God expresses that he does not actually like divorce. I bet you and I agree that the topics of a) lifetime chattel slavery and b) slave breeding are a bigger topic(s) that divorce? If we agree here, and we also know God expresses that he does not like divorce, then why does God remain silent about disliking such slavery practices in which he still allows?

(see Isaiah 58:6.) It simply means the caveat was permitted, for whatever reason, even if only for a time. What God truly wants can be known to us by listening to Christ. And Christ said, "In EVERYTHING you do, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

In regard to the (2) topics I have brought forth, God apparently applies a blanket exception. See post 334 for more details.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Why then are we still talking about this?

I told you why in that same post.

But you know that you cannot listen to Christ's instructions (in the NT) and enslave another person at the same time. Correct?

Therefore, a Christian cannot use the bible to endorse enslavement of any person (or their children) against their will. Not without ignoring/hardening their hearts against Christ, love, and verses like Isaiah 58:6.

Having a caveat does not mean that it outweighs the general.

Well, then we have a possible logical contradiction. How does one reconcile endorsing and/or condoning a) lifetime chattel slavery and b) slave breeding (with the) golden rule?

One does not... not unless a slave and/or his children also desire to be made slaves to their master for life.

But this is no different than the law on divorce. At one point in time there was a caveat (an allowance) made, but after Christ came and someone asked Him about divorce, He told them the truth of the matter.

Having a caveat doesn't even mean it is what God desires

We covered this already when you spoke about 'divorce'. However, God expresses why he sometimes allows divorce anyways, even though God expresses that he does not actually like divorce. I bet you and I agree that the topics of a) lifetime chattel slavery and b) slave breeding are a bigger topic(s) that divorce? If we agree here, and we also know God expresses that he does not like divorce, then why does God remain silent about disliking such slavery practices in which he still allows?

Are you sure He does remain silent?

At Isaiah 58:6, God states that He desires for EVERY yoke to be broken. And again, as you, yourself, acknowledge - one cannot obey Christ's instructions in the NT AND enslave another person against their will at the same time. This does not sound like silence to me.

(see Isaiah 58:6.) It simply means the caveat was permitted, for whatever reason, even if only for a time. What God truly wants can be known to us by listening to Christ. And Christ said, "In EVERYTHING you do, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

In regard to the (2) topics I have brought forth, God apparently applies a blanket exception. See post 334 for more details.

You state that God "apparently" applies a blanket exception, but you provide no evidence to support your statement. Is that because it is just your opinion?


Peace again to you.

[POI]

But you know that you cannot listen to Christ's instructions (in the NT) and enslave another person at the same time.

Jesus has no problem telling folks what not to do. Why remain silent upon what you and I would consider a very large 'immortal' topics? Since Jesus would be aware of the endorsements and allowances in the OT regarding slavery practices, Jesus is either a) negligent in remaining silent to express abolition, (or), b) agrees to let the prior rules/allowances stand. There exists no third logical option here.

Therefore, a Christian cannot use the bible to endorse enslavement of any person (or their children) against their will.

Yes they can. The explanation was already given in the OP and beyond.

Not without ignoring/hardening their hearts against Christ, love, and verses like Isaiah 58:6.

I disagree. Again, Jesus has no problem abolishing what he does not like. And yet, remained silent upon a large 'immoral' topic in which his daddy endorse(s).

One does not... not unless a slave and/or his children also desire to be made slaves to their master for life.

It is not the slave's decision in many cases. Post 334 also explains.

But this is no different than the law on divorce. At one point in time there was a caveat (an allowance) made, but after Christ came and someone asked Him about divorce, He told them the truth of the matter.

Again, Jesus never expresses his opinion on wanting to abolish lifetime chattel slavery and slave breeding. Which then means he either a) is negligent - (in remaining silent to allowances in which his dad made), or, b) agrees with his dad. Again, see post 334.

At Isaiah 58:6, God states that He desires for EVERY yoke to be broken. And again, as you, yourself, acknowledge - one cannot obey Christ's instructions in the NT AND enslave another person against their will at the same time. This does not sound like silence to me.

Again, explained in post 334.

You state that God "apparently" applies a blanket exception, but you provide no evidence to support your statement. Is that because it is just your opinion?

He chooses not to express abolition for instruction in which his father applied.

[tam]

Peace to you,

But you know that you cannot listen to Christ's instructions (in the NT) and enslave another person at the same time.

Jesus has no problem telling folks what not to do. Why remain silent upon what you and I would consider very large 'immortal' topics? Since Jesus would be aware of the endorsements and allowances in the OT regarding slavery practices, Jesus is either a) negligent in remaining silent to express abolition, (or), b) agrees to let the prior rules/allowances stand. There exists no third logical option here.

Therefore, a Christian cannot use the bible to endorse enslavement of any person (or their children) against their will.

Yes they can. The explanation was already given in the OP and beyond.

Not without ignoring/hardening their hearts against Christ, love, and verses like Isaiah 58:6.

I disagree. Again, Jesus has no problem abolishing what he does not like. And yet, remained silent upon a large 'immoral' topic in which his daddy endorse(s).

I feel like I need to remind you that you already admitted that you, YOURSELF, could not obey Christ in the NT AND at the same time, enslave another person against their will.

Here are the questions to which you answered "no": viewtopic.php?p=1159060#p1159060

One does not... not unless a slave and/or his children also desire to be made slaves to their master for life.

It is not the slave's decision in many cases. Post 334 also explains.

Then it would not be reconciled in those cases.

But just because an allowance is made for people at some point, doesn't mean that God will always make an exception for said people. We make allowances for children that we would not make for adults.

But this is no different than the law on divorce. At one point in time there was a caveat (an allowance) made, but after Christ came and someone asked Him about divorce, He told them the truth of the matter.

Again, Jesus never expresses his opinion on wanting to abolish lifetime chattel slavery and slave breeding. Which then means he either a) is negligent - (in remaining silent to allowances in which his dad made), or, b) agrees with his dad. Again, see post 334.

And yet, you, yourself, admit that you could not enslave someone against their will AND obey His instructions in the NT at the same time.

At Isaiah 58:6, God states that He desires for EVERY yoke to be broken. And again, as you, yourself, acknowledge - one cannot obey Christ's instructions in the NT AND enslave another person against their will at the same time. This does not sound like silence to me.

Again, explained in post 334.

Post 334 does not address the fact that you cannot listen to Christ's instructions and also enslave another person against their will.

You state that God "apparently" applies a blanket exception, but you provide no evidence to support your statement. Is that because it is just your opinion?

He chooses not to express abolition for instruction in which his father applied.

Is that all you have to support your statement? Because you have already conceded the point that if you were going to obey Christ's instructions in the NT, you would not be able enslave another person against their will.


Peace again.

[POI]

I feel like I need to remind you that you already admitted that you, YOURSELF, could not obey Christ in the NT AND at the same time, enslave another person against their will. Here are the questions to which you answered "no": viewtopic.php?p=1159060#p1159060

We are just going in circles here tam. Here was my response in post 338:

This was already address in my OP. My own view on these questions do not align with the Bible's view. I reckon your answer is exactly the same as mine. Which is NO! Based upon your pointed questions, you logically cannot. So now, please reconcile all of what the Bible endorses, for which YOU would not. Oh yea, you already did. 'Erring pens' and 'divorce allowances.' A recap has been issued in post 334.

Then it would not be reconciled in those cases. But just because an allowance is made for people at some point, doesn't mean that God will always make an exception for said people.

Again, Jesus has the power to abolish prior allowances. These rules are not, what you and I would consider, trivial rules. Again, was Jesus either:

a) Negligent, in not denouncing prior rules/endorsements set by dad?
b) Complicit, and is instead for keeping the prior rules/endorsements set by dad?

We make allowances for children that we would not make for adults.

Yes, and the Bible's rules state that children/women/other, for slaves, are often not the same, as they are for the Israelite males.

And yet, you, yourself, admit that you could not enslave someone against their will AND obey His instructions in the NT at the same time.

If I were a believer, I also could not fault a fellow Christian slave owner, as Jesus never abolishes such endorsed or condoned activities.

Post 334 does not address the fact that you cannot listen to Christ's instructions and also enslave another person against their will.

Yes you can. I've explained ad nauseum...

Is that all you have to support your statement? Because you have already conceded the point that if you were going to obey Christ's instructions in the NT, you would not be able enslave another person against their will.

If I were a Christian, and I decided to hold slaves, keep them for life, breed them, and whip them on the back, God/Jesus apparently thinks that is not wrong. I might think it is wrong, but not them. Otherwise, I would wonder why they did not say so?

[servant1]

[Replying to POI in post #368]


Actually God knows wicked mortal hearts would enslave their human family members for greed. And some were indentured slaves who sold themselves into slavery. God isn't interfering unless it thwarts his will. Just like God doesn't stop bad weather even though it effects the righteous and the wicked. Droughts, floods, etc both sides endure it.
Its what this satan ruled system is all about. Mortals chose this kind of world by kicking God in the teeth in the Eden rebellion. Gods kingdom is the cure all.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #368]


Actually God knows wicked mortal hearts would enslave their human family members for greed. And some were indentured slaves who sold themselves into slavery. God isn't interfering unless it thwarts his will. Just like God doesn't stop bad weather even though it effects the righteous and the wicked. Droughts, floods, etc both sides endure it.
Its what this satan ruled system is all about. Mortals chose this kind of world by kicking God in the teeth in the Eden rebellion. Gods kingdom is the cure all.

And yet, God bothers to tell folks what he does not like. And yet, the topic of slavery does not even make the list?