"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]

No really, is there some 'good' form of lifetime chattel slavery and slave breeding that you know about, in which I do not?

Only good form is that the person accepts the position freely.

I'm speaking about lifetime chattel slavery and slave breeding, as defined in the OP. You are instead trying to water down the term, and/or muddy the waters, to remove accountability. Tsk tsk...

No meaningful difference to being a tax slave.

[POI]

No really, is there some 'good' form of lifetime chattel slavery and slave breeding that you know about, in which I do not?

Only good form is that the person accepts the position freely.

Please tell me who, in their right mind, would volunteer to be a lifetime chattel slave or hope they were bred into becoming a lifetime chattel slave?

No meaningful difference to being a tax slave.

Of course there is... If you were to poll 1,000 folks, and ask them whether they wanted to:

a) pay 20% of their paycheck to the government, or...
b) be someone's lifetime chattel slave, where they are treated like property.

Which answer would be selected unanimously?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #580]

POI, you acknowledge that science and history evolve, but demand that Christian moral understanding must be completely static. This ignores the reality that theology—like science—has engaged in interpretation, adaptation, and ethical evolution throughout history. Why do you insist that Christians must take an 'all or nothing' approach, while every other field of knowledge—including legal, philosophical, and even scientific texts—is open to interpretation?

Simply repeating 'the NT reinforces slavery' does not make it true. You still haven’t addressed why NT moral teachings—such as Galatians 3:28, Philemon, and Jesus’ ethical principles—were used by abolitionists to help dismantle slavery. If the Bible purely supports slavery, why did abolitionist Christians argue the opposite using biblical principles?

Your argument ignores that Christian abolitionists explicitly used the Bible to argue against slavery. Figures like William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Beecher Stowe directly cited scripture to justify abolition.

If the Bible was purely pro-slavery, how did these abolitionists find so much biblical support for their cause? Galatians 3:28, Exodus 21:16, and Philemon 1:16 all reinforce the principles of human dignity and equality.

You cannot claim that the Bible is 'only pro-slavery' while ignoring the fact that abolitionist movements used it as a foundation for ending slavery. That is a contradiction in your argument.

Even if your claim that the Bible is divinely inspired, how does that mean its moral applications were meant to be frozen in time? Religious scholars across history have interpreted and adapted its teachings—just like with any other moral or philosophical tradition. You are imposing a rigid, fundamentalist interpretation onto Christianity that many Christians themselves do not hold.

The Bible Was Used as an Anti-Slavery Text
Many abolitionist arguments centered on biblical justice, mercy, and equality.

Galatians 3:28 → "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Philemon 1:16 → Paul encourages Philemon to treat his slave, Onesimus, as a brother in Christ, which undermines the legitimacy of slavery.
Exodus 21:16 → "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 → "You shall not return to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he chooses within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."
Isaiah 58:6 → "Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?"

Abolitionists argued that these passages reflected the TRUE biblical morality, while pro-slavery Christians twisted scripture to justify oppression.

Are you arguing that any Christian who rejects slavery is not a ‘true Christian’? If so, you are engaging in the ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy—redefining Christianity in a way that excludes the millions of Christians who opposed slavery.

If Christians must accept slavery to be consistent, then how do you explain Christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, who used biblical arguments to fight slavery? Were they not real Christians?

Your argument only holds if Christianity requires slavery. But since Christians themselves led abolitionist movements using scripture, your claim is contradicted by historical reality."

[POI]

William, before I respond here, we both agree that the Bible condones humans owning other humans as lifetime property while never condemning such practices. Okay, now we return to our regularly schedule exchange...

POI, you acknowledge that science and history evolve, but demand that Christian moral understanding must be completely static. This ignores the reality that theology—like science—has engaged in interpretation, adaptation, and ethical evolution throughout history. Why do you insist that Christians must take an 'all or nothing' approach, while every other field of knowledge—including legal, philosophical, and even scientific texts—is open to interpretation?

I've already explained like three times now. The Bible claims to be given by a divine source(s). Such divine incite negates 'adaptation' or 'evolution'. Otherwise, the Bible is no better than any other work of mere human(s), like that of a "science" or a "history" book, which would be open for update/correction, or later rebuttal. To the Christian believer, the Commandments, and the like, are not debatable or negotiable. The Bible endorses a particular action in which believers no longer like. Hence, apologetics 101, like the video in post 561, are given. The mere fact that this video content creator created such a video is a direct demonstration that the Bible condones slavery. Which is why he shamelessly tries to overt what the Bible actual condones, in actual full context. The content creator is either deceptive or ignorant.

Simply repeating 'the NT reinforces slavery' does not make it true.

Then I guess you can show me where the NT expresses its direct abolition? Maybe it was during Jesus's Sermon on the Mount? No? Okay, maybe it is mentioned somewhere else? Again, the NT is aware of what the OT wrote. Again, lifetime chattel slavery would become a very hot topic issue. Again, the NT would also know this. You get the point I trust...

You still haven’t addressed why NT moral teachings—such as Galatians 3:28

Let's look at the broader context here:

"26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Nope... I still do not see where the NT expresses abolition for humans owning other humans as property. All it states here is that if you are a slave, you are still welcome under 'God's kingdom.' Weeee.... So basically, if you are deemed someone else's property for life, at least you get to someday chill with Jesus in the afterlife.

Philemon, and Jesus’ ethical principles—were used by abolitionists to help dismantle slavery. If the Bible purely supports slavery, why did abolitionist Christians argue the opposite using biblical principles?

I already answered here. These abolitionists exercised their own moral compass. Nowhere does the Bible express direct abolition for humans owning other humans as property. Only these abolitionists do. The Bible instead condones such practices alone.

Your argument ignores that Christian abolitionists explicitly used the Bible to argue against slavery. Figures like William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Beecher Stowe directly cited scripture to justify abolition.

Yea, just like the individual in post 561 did Meaning, they cherrypicked to personal taste. These folks had to somehow realize that their own moral compass does not align with the Bible's moral compass, in regard to humans owning other humans as lifetime property.

If the Bible was purely pro-slavery, how did these abolitionists find so much biblical support for their cause? Galatians 3:28, Exodus 21:16, and Philemon 1:16 all reinforce the principles of human dignity and equality.

Already explained directly above.

You cannot claim that the Bible is 'only pro-slavery' while ignoring the fact that abolitionist movements used it as a foundation for ending slavery. That is a contradiction in your argument.

Nope. Already addressed above...

Even if your claim that the Bible is divinely inspired, how does that mean its moral applications were meant to be frozen in time?

As stated many times now... The OT condones such practices. And rather than the NT remaining silent or denouncing such practices, the NT instead reinforces such practices. Maybe there is a 'Newer Testament' coming in the works?

For starters, for the Christian, are the 10 Commandments debatable? No! Is the 'golden rule' also debatable? No! Etc etc etc?

Religious scholars across history have interpreted and adapted its teachings—just like with any other moral or philosophical tradition. You are imposing a rigid, fundamentalist interpretation onto Christianity that many Christians themselves do not hold.

This is because they are forced to. I.E. -- The content creator of the video from post 561 and a small sample summation in post 334... They are left to deal with moral pronouncements which do not align with their own moral compass. Hence, apologetics 101...

The Bible Was Used as an Anti-Slavery Text
Many abolitionist arguments centered on biblical justice, mercy, and equality.

Galatians 3:28 → "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Philemon 1:16 → Paul encourages Philemon to treat his slave, Onesimus, as a brother in Christ, which undermines the legitimacy of slavery.
Exodus 21:16 → "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 → "You shall not return to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he chooses within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."
Isaiah 58:6 → "Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?"

This issue would be solved quite simply. All it would have taken was a one-liner. I express it directly below...

I also skimmed these passages. Nowhere do I see where it states "thou shall not allow for humans to own other humans as property."

I already addressed Gal. 3:28 above.

In regard to Phil. 1:16, the slave was a believer.

And in regard to Ex. 21:16, a bred slave is not a kidnapped slave. I've already touched on this in the OP.

And as for Is. 58:6, again, a one-liner as all that would have been needed. I address this in post 334, where there exists a hierarchy. The rules do not apply equally for all under 'creation.'

Abolitionists argued that these passages reflected the TRUE biblical morality, while pro-slavery Christians twisted scripture to justify oppression.

No. It is the opposite. You already agree the OT condones humans owning other humans as property. And nowhere does the NT provide a simple one-liner condemning humans owning other humans as property.

Are you arguing that any Christian who rejects slavery is not a ‘true Christian’? If so, you are engaging in the ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy—redefining Christianity in a way that excludes the millions of Christians who opposed slavery.

No, this is not my argument. My argument is instead that the believer must be a "cafeteria Christian".

If Christians must accept slavery to be consistent, then how do you explain Christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, who used biblical arguments to fight slavery? Were they not real Christians?

Already addressed....

Your argument only holds if Christianity requires slavery. But since Christians themselves led abolitionist movements using scripture, your claim is contradicted by historical reality."

Nope. My argument is that Christianity condones slavery. And Christians no-likely.... Just like some Christians will protest that a Planned Parenthood clinic condones abortion rather than denouncing it.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #583]

William, you go on about later abolitionists. You then admit this topic becomes a very important one to progress human morality. And yet, the Bible cares not to offer a single one-liner, expressing the condemning of humans owning other humans as property? Again, the NT writer(s) would know what moral issues would later develop, and remained silent on one of the, what you would agree to be, biggest issues we humans later abolish completely on our own.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #585]

POI, you are avoiding the contradiction in your claim. If the Bible is purely pro-slavery, why did Christian abolitionists find biblical support for their cause? Simply repeating 'the Bible condones slavery' without addressing this fact is ignoring evidence.

Galatians 3:28 does not merely say ‘slaves are welcome under God.’ It undermines the very basis of slavery by asserting that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ If this passage were taken seriously, it would logically dismantle the concept of treating slaves as property. This is precisely why abolitionists cited it.

Your demand for a ‘one-liner’ is an Argument from Silence—you assume that if something is not condemned in the precise way you expect, it must be approved. But Jesus also never explicitly condemned Roman crucifixion—does that mean he endorsed it? The NT introduces principles that undermine slavery, which is why abolitionists used it to help dismantle the institution.

You dismiss Exodus 21:16 by claiming that ‘bred slaves’ are not ‘kidnapped slaves,’ but this is misleading. The transatlantic slave trade—one of the worst forms of slavery in history—was built on kidnapping and selling people. The Bible explicitly condemns this practice. You also ignore Deuteronomy 23:15-16, which commands that runaway slaves must not be returned to their masters—directly opposing chattel slavery.

You argue that Christians who oppose slavery are 'Cafeteria Christians.' But abolitionists did not reject scripture—they used it. You claim they ‘cherry-picked’ verses, yet you do the same by ignoring passages that condemn forced slavery. Your argument assumes that the only ‘true Christians’ must accept slavery—this is a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

If your argument is strong, engage with these points instead of repeating the same claims without addressing counterarguments.

[POI]

POI, you are avoiding the contradiction in your claim. If the Bible is purely pro-slavery, why did Christian abolitionists find biblical support for their cause? Simply repeating 'the Bible condones slavery' without addressing this fact is ignoring evidence.

You are the one who is ignoring my responses. My argument is that the Bible condones slavery. As I told you already, it is really no different than a Christian protestor standing outside a Planned Parenthood clinic because this institution condones abortion rather than disallowing abortion. Like the Christian wants to abolish the act of abortion, the Christian now also wants to abolish slavery. Well, the Christian is over-extending their reach here, as the Bible had ample chance to express abolition, but didn't. Even though the NT would/should realize that this would become an extremely prolific and morally controversial topic. Tsk tsk...

Galatians 3:28 does not merely say ‘slaves are welcome under God.’ It undermines the very basis of slavery by asserting that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ If this passage were taken seriously, it would logically dismantle the concept of treating slaves as property. This is precisely why abolitionists cited it.

Negative. This is the later Christian abolitionists over-extending what is meant by the verse(s). This is why I extended the verse, in context, to include surrounding verse(s). Please read it again. The verse says nothing about rebuking/denouncing slavery practices. Verse 26-27 state all are under Christ, whether you are free or not. Verse 28 simply identifies, again, that even though not all are the same in gender and status, all are welcome in the afterlife who believe.

Your demand for a ‘one-liner’ is an Argument from Silence—you assume that if something is not condemned in the precise way you expect, it must be approved. But Jesus also never explicitly condemned Roman crucifixion—does that mean he endorsed it? The NT introduces principles that undermine slavery, which is why abolitionists used it to help dismantle the institution.

LOL! This is mere avoidance to the reality that the Bible does not express abolition for humans owning other humans as property. It is expressed nowhere, and we can even be lenient with the verbiage. You have yet to offer verse which identifies the NT as rebuking humans owning other humans as property. And in regard to crucifixion, you'd have some kind of a point if the Bible condoned humans crucifying other humans in such a way. This 'silence' argument you speak of drives home my point, which I've already told you, more than once now... If the Bible never condoned such practices, or even remained silent about such actions, you'd have a point, and I also never would have broached this topic. However, the Christian is left with a moral conundrum. Hence, why there exists the video, as presented in post 561.

You dismiss Exodus 21:16 by claiming that ‘bred slaves’ are not ‘kidnapped slaves,’ but this is misleading. The transatlantic slave trade—one of the worst forms of slavery in history—was built on kidnapping and selling people. The Bible explicitly condemns this practice. You also ignore Deuteronomy 23:15-16, which commands that runaway slaves must not be returned to their masters—directly opposing chattel slavery.

Are bred slaves kidnapped? Exodus 21:4 explains. And in regard to Deuteronomy 23:15, if the Christian argues that Christian slave ownership is somehow better or superior to the Transatlantic slave trade, then why create a law about runaways in the first place? The Christian argues that it's all volitional. The video also argues that the master provides a safe and loving environment. Well, which one is it? Is it volitional and loving, or not? The video states volitional and loving. Why run away from a great thing?

You argue that Christians who oppose slavery are 'Cafeteria Christians.' But abolitionists did not reject scripture—they used it. You claim they ‘cherry-picked’ verses, yet you do the same by ignoring passages that condemn forced slavery. Your argument assumes that the only ‘true Christians’ must accept slavery—this is a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

My argument is clearly presented in the OP. It's not a complete free-for-all. But the Christian still needs to compromise their own set of morals to get on board with the version the Bible offers, none-the-less. Sorry. Hence, the reason we have such apologetics videos.

If your argument is strong, engage with these points instead of repeating the same claims without addressing counterarguments.

If your argument was strong, you would have stopped me in my tracks. My argument remains uncontested.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #587]

If your argument was strong, you would have stopped me in my tracks. My argument remains uncontested.

One cannot stop an obstinately runaway train of fallacious argument—one has to let it derail naturally...

It’s clear that you’re going to continue using fallacious reasoning rather than engaging with my actual arguments. Until you can address the contradiction in your claim—namely, why abolitionists found biblical support for ending slavery if the Bible is purely pro-slavery—I have nothing more to say.

When you're ready to engage with logic rather than repetition and rhetorical distractions, let me know.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #588]

Readers will see that it is quite clear you are ducking out of this exchange, and not for the blank rubber-stamp(ed) reason(s) you have and do apply

I'll leave readers with this... The fact that you acknowledge many later abolitionists waged a front to denounce such slavery practices continues to beg the question... Why didn't the Bible express abolition for humans owning other humans as lifetime slave property? With a topic which later became paramount to the moral sensibilities of humans, you would think the Bible would possess the foresight to let readers know that owning humans as lifetime slavery property is wrong. Failing to do so means one of two logical conclusions. Either the Bible is negligent, or the Bible holds to its previously expressed position. There exists no third logical position here as the topic of lifetime chattel slavery is a massive topic in which many humans later contest with vigor. To ignore this massive topic means one of the two options expressed. Instead, Christians have firm justification for owning slaves, as the Bible makes a conscious effort to tell readers that they may keep humans as lifetime slave property. The Bible never tells readers later, that lifetime slave property ownership is forbidden. In conclusion, to your prior point, the Bible is crystal clear when instructing what humans can do (i.e. Leviticus 25:44-46), but, is unclear when instructing what they can no longer do?.?.?.?

Thus, to argue that the Bible only condoned humans owning other humans as lifetime slave property, (once upon a time), but no more, is misguided.

[POI]

Repost from 493.

Just for fun... Let's see if we can find all the ways in which this content creator is:

a) being deliberately misleading...
b) completely ignorant to the book he studies

The video is less than 5 minutes.



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

7 "FACTS" given by this sleazy content creator:

1) God did not create slavery, but regulated it.
2) The purpose of slavery in the Bible was to help the poor
3) In the Hebrew culture, slavery was volitional
4) Kidnapping was not permitted
5) Slavery was limited to 6 years, (in a safe and loving environment)
6) Masters were to treat their slaves with respect
7) Israelites are servants

Good day Bible believers. Any of you wish to tell me which option best fits this content creator's position(s), and why? Above are his seven claims:

a) He is correct, and skeptics have the Bible all wrong -- who disagree with the above 7 claims.
b) He is incorrect, and he knows it.
c) He is incorrect, but genuinely believes he is correct.
d) He possesses a combination of both b) and c).