"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.'

[1213]

....And yet, the Bible goes out of its way to grant complete impunity for beating one's slave anyways....

That is true only if you ignore many major parts of the Bible.

Since the Bible tells readers a slave master is not to be punished, as long as the slave does not die or lose eyes/teeth, there is nothing in which the reader is to ignore. The slave master is completely protected from punishment for beatings.

The same is in every case, not just in the case of slaves. Bible doesn't define generally a punishment for beating people. That does not mean it is then ok to beat others.

[POI]

Yes, the owner decides.

Then you need to redact what you quoted in post 455, when you stated: "and your slave wants to god free, you let her go, because you would not want to be a slave against your will."

But, the owner should also obey the love your neighbor as yourself commandment.

I already addressed this multiple times, starting at the original post, on the bottom. There exist many exceptions to the rule.

[POI]

The same is in every case, not just in the case of slaves. Bible doesn't define generally a punishment for beating people. That does not mean it is then ok to beat others.

No. The Bible does not tell the reader to grant immunity from punishment in the event a free man beats another free man. Differing rules exist, depending on the situation.

[benchwarmer]

The same is in every case, not just in the case of slaves. Bible doesn't define generally a punishment for beating people. That does not mean it is then ok to beat others.

I think perhaps you need to go reread your Bible. Specifically Exodus 21. Here's a handy link for you:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Personal Injuries

12 "Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

15 "Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.

16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnappers possession.

17 "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

18 "If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

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.

22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the womans husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

26 "An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

I bolded the bits you should probably read carefully. All about hitting/striking/beating other people (including slaves or not slaves).

[1213]

...
I bolded the bits you should probably read carefully. All about hitting/striking/beating other people (including slaves or not slaves).

Thanks, so by POI's logic, one can beat others, if no visible harm done and it is not the parents.

[1213]

The same is in every case, not just in the case of slaves. Bible doesn't define generally a punishment for beating people. That does not mean it is then ok to beat others.

No. The Bible does not tell the reader to grant immunity from punishment in the event a free man beats another free man. Differing rules exist, depending on the situation.

If no visible harm done, no punishment, which is the same in the case of slaves.

[1213]

Yes, the owner decides.

Then you need to redact what you quoted in post 455, when you stated: "and your slave wants to god free, you let her go, because you would not want to be a slave against your will."

Also in that case the owner decides.

There exist many exceptions to the rule.

In your mind, not in the Bible.

[POI]

If no visible harm done, no punishment, which is the same in the case of slaves.

Nope. If you are free, the rules differ. Case/point:

Exodus 21:23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Also, you are not allowed to strike your parent, otherwise, you are sentenced to death (Exodus 21:15).

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

Alternatively, with the slave, the master does not lose an eye or tooth in any case, if the master knocks out the slave's eye or tooth. The slave is merely instructed to leave. Further, beatings, which usually include whipping to the backside, are fully permitted without any punishment.

Please remember, the slave was the master's money/property. Whipping them kept them in line. It would be stupid to hurt them too badly. Otherwise, they lose their labor force. Masters can beat their property just enough to keep them in line and to be fully useful for their slavery needs. This is why whipping them on the back was likely the preferred method, as it is hard to knock out eyes and teeth this way as well.

[POI]

Also in that case the owner decides.

Women have no say in the matter. This is my point.

In your mind, not in the Bible.

Not only in my mind, but as the Bible also instructs.

[POI]

Thanks, so by POI's logic, one can beat others, if no visible harm done and it is not the parents.

No. Exodus 21:23 specifically states that both eye and tooth removal are considered serious injuries which also warrant removal of the offender's eye(s)/teeth. Meaning, if a free person injures another free person's eye(s) or teeth, the one doing the injuring of them is to suffer the same fate themselves. Alternatively, from Exodus 21:26-27, if a master is to injure a slave's eye or tooth, the master is NOT to suffer the same fate as the slave. The master keeps his eye(s)/teeth. The slave is instead instructed to be freed alone. Hence, the rules DIFFER between the free and the enslaves.

And like I already stated, it would be illogical to remove the slave's eye(s), since the slave is the master's (property/money/workforce). These slaves are bought as property, and to provide for cheap labor for their masters. Further, a blind slave is a worthless slave. Such injuries were likely only done when the slave was no longer deemed useful - due to permanent work injury, severe sickness, or old age. In which case, the slave can simply leave after their eye(s) and teeth are destroyed from a more severe beating, as the slave is of no more use to the master. However, the master is not to suffer the fate of the eye or tooth removal for inflicting such action. The slave master is basically protected. Hallelujah