"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]

I can see how people would be led to think God is evil and supports error and wickedness, but those people are wrong.

The Bible does not deem a) lifetime chattel slavery and b) slave breeding as evil and wickedness. If you think they are evil and wicked, then it is you who are wrong, when compared to the likes of the stated Bible God.

15th request: Why follow the moral standards of a book which does not align with your own?

[servant1]

[Replying to marke in post #458]


God isn't interfering, mortals asked for this wicked system by rebelling in Eden. When Jesus comes here-Rev 19:11, God will show 100% his rejection of the things you mentioned because he hates those things. Gods kingdom rule will do away with all wicked things.

[tam]

Peace to you,

1 - Can YOU enslave another person if you are supposed to make yourself a LEAST one?

If your answer is 'no', then you cannot enslave another person against their will unless you disobey Christ. Because His command to His followers is to make ourselves least. If He commands us to be least, we cannot then force someone to be less than us.

Again, you are being picky and choosy.

I am not. But you are. You already answered 'no' to the questions, yet you are ignoring what that MEANS.

The answer 'no' to the questions you were asked proves that Christ does not endorse the forced enslavement of other humans, but since this proof does not support your argument, what is left other than excuses and self-justifications? The same excuses and self-justifications that others may have used so they could do what they wanted instead of doing what Christ and His Father want:

Make yourself the least one.
Set the oppressed free and break every yoke.
In ALL things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Love your neighbor and also your enemy.
Love others as Christ loved you.
Serve others as Christ served you.

**

Here is an example of an excuse:

2 - Can YOU enslave another person (or their children) if YOU are supposed to be serving THEM?

If your answer is no (and it was), then you cannot enslave another person (or their children) unless you disobey Christ. Because His command to His followers is for us to BE the servants; to serve OTHERS. If He commands us to serve others, we cannot force others to serve us. It just doesn't work that way.

Along with my answer to your last question, we can also add that all rules are not created equal for all (i.e.)

God > Jesus > free man > free woman > free children > Israelite male slave > Israelite female slave > all other slaves - (including bred slaves) > livestock > nature

Whoever taught you this is just making stuff up.

Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12

No male or female, no slave or free, no Jew or Greek... etc.

Not only that, but you want to assert that when Christ said 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', that He was not including slaves and slavery into that mix. You have provided absolutely no evidence to support this assertion - this again is entirely made up - and there is proof AGAINST it:

"In EVERYTHING you do, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."


I am not the one who is picking and choosing or making excuses, POI. I have addressed the things you have said head-on.

Yes, slavery was permitted in Israel. But just because the law permitted something does not mean that God wanted it or even approved. At one time, allowances had been made for the hard-hardheartedness of the people. This is a fact.


Slavery might also have been permitted to provide a means of survival for some, since it could save the life of a person and give them a home when they might otherwise have died or been killed.

A person could even give themselves willingly to another person out of love; in which case there is no reason to speak against it. Christ made HIMSELF a slave, a least one, and willingly gives His will over to His Father, out of love. And in turn, out of love, God has given His Son all authority, the highest position (except over God Himself of course.)

The apostles and others who belong to Christ, from the NT, made themselves 'slaves of Christ' as well, not because they were forced, but out of love. It is all about love - and love IS the law of the new covenant, under Christ, mediated by Him.


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

[Diagoras]

Yes, slavery was permitted in Israel. But just because the law permitted something does not mean that God wanted it or even approved.

Im coming to this thread rather late and havent read the over 400 posts.

Is there anywhere in the Bible that suggests God didnt want the Israelites to keep slaves? How do we know that God isnt fully pro-slavery?

[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.

[1213]

But if we go by the rule, love your neighbor as yourself, and your slave wants to god free, you let her go, because you would not want to be a slave against your will.

It is not up to her. The law states that it is up to the master. The law states that the females are not to go free, as the males can. The rule differs, in that some males can leave, but women, can't.

There is no law saying the owner is not allowed to let her go, if the owner allows it.

This is the best solution the Bible some come up with? (i.e.)

What do you think would have happened to the woman when she would leave, at that era?

There exists no 'good' kinds of slavery.

I can believe that you would not be a good slave owner, and therefore it is good, if you don't have slaves.

[POI]

Christ does not endorse the forced enslavement of other humans, but since this proof does not support your argument

You would have some kind of a position if the Bible never weighed in on the topic of "slavery". You, and other believers, could argue the Bible is not in favor or pro-slavery. But, the Bible did. And the OP explains what the Bible actually condones/endorses.

Now it's my turn for some yes/no question(s). But I will answer for you, to speed things along...

(yes or no) Did Jesus have any problem expressing what he does not like?

(yes or no) Was Jesus aware that prior rules were created which endorsed/condones both lifetime chattel slavery and slave breeding?

(yes or no) Did Jesus remain silent in regard to all "slavery" laws in which were already in place?

(yes or no) Would Jesus already be aware that "slavery" would become a very hot topic in the future?

It is clear Jesus is logically okay with the laws in which were already put into place. Otherwise, he would have made, even minimal efforts, to express his disdain for prior given slavery laws, as expressed in the Torah.

Make yourself the least one.
Set the oppressed free and break every yoke.
In ALL things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Love your neighbor and also your enemy.
Love others as Christ loved you.
Serve others as Christ served you.

All Jesus would have had to say is one line. Such as... (i.e.) -- "Owning another human as slave property is now and forever an abomination." Done! Since this is not the case, I stand by my position given above.

Whoever taught you this is just making stuff up.

Using the Bible, do you honestly think the rules are equal for all humans?

Not only that, but you want to assert that when Christ said 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', that He was not including slaves and slavery into that mix. You have provided absolutely no evidence to support this assertion - this again is entirely made up - and there is proof AGAINST it:

Hmm? So, the 'NT" expresses abolition for slavery? Remember, the 'OT" goes out of its way to tell folks what slave masters can and cannot do with their lifetime slave property. And when the 'NT" comes along, instead of telling folks slave ownership is now an abomination/other, the 'NT" instead tells slaves to work hard, and even harder if their masters are believers.

Yes, slavery was permitted in Israel. But just because the law permitted something does not mean that God wanted it or even approved. At one time, allowances had been made for the hard-hardheartedness of the people. This is a fact.

The 'NT" does not express abolition for the rules made in the "OT". And since Jesus has no problem telling folks what he does not like, this means the prior rules stand forwever.

Slavery might also have been permitted to provide a means of survival for some, since it could save the life of a person and give them a home when they might otherwise have died or been killed.

Please tell me this not actually the best option Jesus could come up with? Lifetime chattel slavery and/or slave breeding is the best solution?

A person could even give themselves willingly to another person out of love; in which case there is no reason to speak against it. Christ made HIMSELF a slave, a least one, and willingly gives His will over to His Father, out of love. And in turn, out of love, God has given His Son all authority, the highest position (except over God Himself of course.)

As a chattel slave for life?

The apostles and others who belong to Christ, from the NT, made themselves 'slaves of Christ' as well, not because they were forced, but out of love. It is all about love - and love IS the law of the new covenant, under Christ, mediated by Him.

This is where you are being very very loose with the term 'slave'. I doubt the allowed slavery practices, in which the Bible condones, is the same as following Jesus

[POI]

....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.

[POI]

There is no law saying the owner is not allowed to let her go, if the owner allows it.

My point here is that it is NOT up to the female slave at all, but instead the slave master alone. And I doubt a slave master is going to let their slave go, when they provide cheap labor, or other desired services for their master, which is the purpose of a slave.

What do you think would have happened to the woman when she would leave, at that era?

You skipped my question. Lifetime chattel slavery is the best solution the Bible could come up with?

I can believe that you would not be a good slave owner, and therefore it is good, if you don't have slaves.

You missed my point. There are no good kinds of 'slavery'. This is why Christians try to desperately sprinkle as much proverbial sugar on it as they can. --- Much like one might do in telling folks that eating a turd is somehow good, as long as you put enough sugar on it.

In this case, slave = turd.

[1213]

My point here is that it is NOT up to the female slave at all, but instead the slave master alone. And I doubt a slave master is going to let their slave go, when they provide cheap labor, or other desired services for their master, which is the purpose of a slave.

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