Slavery, a Guide

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Would an Israelite be a POW, in any of these cited situations? I doubt it.

If you read the verses, you'd see that these were foreign prisoners of war, not Hebrew ones (which are covered under the laws about kidnapping).

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

So now you want to instead shift to the NT. Great. No problem either. Let's take a closer look. What does the rational reader see, when they read the following?:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free."

When the NT comes along, maybe these authors needed to add some differing Verses, to try to more-so keep them in line. Reading such passages above, would assure these slaves work harder, and maybe try not to escape. Telling the slave to treat their masters like God, assures they achieve even more obedience.

What the rational reader does is read the whole passage and then determine what it means, not just a portion of it. After all you could just read verse 7 and say that it has nothing to do with slaves at all.

If you read the whole thing... i.e. including verse 9, which you conveniently missed off: "Masters treat your slaves the same way, giving up the use of threats, because you know that both you and they have the same master in heaven and there is no favouritism with him"

So in other words Paul is also Telling the masters to treat their slaves like God, assuring they achieve even more love.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Yes, but it shows a difference between raping a person versus raping a piece of property.

Why?

I'd hazard a guess that the different rules just ensure that there is punishment for the perpetrator and does not warrant a kind of 'I can do anything because they are my property' attitude.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

You just waived off Lev 25:44-46 and talked about US slavery. Please tell me how Lev 25 is moral? Buying people as slaves forever and passing them down to children.

I was referring to the Atlantic Slave Trade and Christianity, so I wasn't waiving off anything.

If you want to discuss the morality of Lev 25, then no problem, but let's divorce it from the Atlantic Slave Trade where so much else was going on that even the Jewish Law would have been in opposition.

 

[cvanwey]

Actually no, when the Bible makes no distinction... it makes no distinction. Assuming a distinction from an absence is an error.

Where "slaves" are concerned, the Bible does make clear distinctions. As I already told you in post #657. If you are an Israelite, you receive special considerations.

Case/point: Lev. 25:39-43 --- Israelites are not to be treated as 'slaves'.

"39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

Case/point: Lev. 25:44-46 --- If you are not an Israelite, you may be a "slave".

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.

In essence, let me spell it out for you (again)... Israelites are not to be treated the same as non-Israelites, under any circumstances - (whether they be categorized as a servant/slave <or> free). If you are not an Israelite, whether you are a (servant/slave <or> free), the rules differ.

 

[cvanwey]

YOUR ASSERTION IS PATENTLY FALSE. The Bible says, "The resident foreigner who lives with you must be to you as a native citizen among you; so you must love the foreigner as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt." (Ex 22:21, Ex 23:9, Lev 19:33-34, 24:22, Num 15:15-16, Dt 24:14).

Resident Foreigners are to be treated in exactly the same way as Hebrew slaves throughout. Even the Jubilee laws were to apply to them, except as they had no land to reclaim (not being apportioned a piece of land) they would not benefit wholeheartedly unless they married into a Hebrew family and inherited via their spouse.

You are wrong, yet again. You are instructed not to enslave Hebrew servants for life, unless you get them to do so under a specific clause (i.e.) Exodus 21:4-6. However, you are instructed that it is okay to keep foreign 'slaves' for life, as I already referenced above; via Lev. 25:44-46. And please continue to remember, when the Bible is speaking about 'slaves', it uses the word "slaves." 'Slaves' do not have the same rights as the 'free'.

 

[cvanwey]

That would be an assumption, though not an unreasonable one.
What however stops them from learning to read? Also what stops them from learning to listen: The Torah would have been read daily and would eventually include the whole law. For a slave to not know their rights under Jewish law either requires a level of laziness that beggars belief or a conspiracy by the whole of Israel.

Neither option is particularly likely.

What is most unlikely, was your 'assumption'... That these slaves may read passages themselves

A slave master could read the Torah, and/or the NT, in context, and support 'slavery practices.'

 

[cvanwey]

But then the terms used in the Hebrew language are pretty much the same regardless of context, it is only the context that tells us that this is a different usage of the same term. We can use the term 'servant' when it applies to the kind of Sabbath servant hood (Indentured Servitude) and 'slave' when it refers to those sold from foreign nations. Perhaps 'Prisoner of War' should be used to refer to those surrendering in battle.

Either way it is only the context and clarifying words that make one category different from another. And if that category can change for an individual then the whole thing can be fluid, i.e. hired workers can ask to make their service more permanent (become an indentured servant) and the foreigner can ask to become resident and be treated as such.

And the rules on runaway slaves/servants also indicate that it was possible to change status for someone who was determined.

Again, when the Bible is speaking about the topic of slavery, it specifies.

 

[cvanwey]

Of course I am aware that not all foreigners were slaves,

But then some of them were and they are the ones we are discussing. Your reasoning says that they were only resident foreigners if they weren't slaves... which isn't what the law says at all. It makes no call on whether they way were slave or free - it just says treat them exactly the same. It doesn't say "Treat the resident foreigner just like yourselves, unless they are slaves". On the contrary the context of the references to resident foreigners almost always brings in their own status in Egypt (i.e. enslaved).

if the bible does not go out of it's way to speak about 'slavery', the the Bible is speaking generically and for you to specifically exclude slavery is to indicate that you have read something into the law that wasn't there.

Again, if the Bible does not go out of it's way to mention a "servant" <and/or> "slave", then it is speaking about the free.

Case/point: Ex. 21:2-11; Ex. 21:20-21; Ex. 21:26-27 all go out of it's way to mention special considerations for the enslaved and/or servant populous.

All other Verses are speaking about the general population, whom are not enslaved. This is further made clear in Verses 23-25, where the Bible re-clarifies an "eye for an eye", "tooth for a tooth" etc... Where-as, if a slave master knocks out the slave's tooth or eye, the slave is merely to go free "for compensation" -- that's all.

You see, both the topics of "slavery" and "pregnancy" are special considerations. Not real common-place scenarios... In the case for the pregnant woman, the Bible still explicitly instructs equal punishment, as they are free. Where-as, if a "slave" is harmed, they are merely set free with no direct/equal punishment to the slave master.

 

[cvanwey]

What the rational reader does is read the whole passage and then determine what it means, not just a portion of it. After all you could just read verse 7 and say that it has nothing to do with slaves at all.

If you read the whole thing... i.e. including verse 9, which you conveniently missed off: "Masters treat your slaves the same way, giving up the use of threats, because you know that both you and they have the same master in heaven and there is no favouritism with him"

So in other words Paul is also Telling the masters to treat their slaves like God, assuring they achieve even more love.

I'm growing tired of repeating myself You completely avoided the other Verses; leading up to Verse 9, for which I also polarized.

The Bible tells slaves to remain obedient in everything -- (please look it up). If the slave does not obey in everything, they are not obedient. The Bible also instructs that you may beat your slaves, as long as they do not die. I would imagine a warranted beating is disobedience; since the Bible instructs that the slaves are to remain obedient in everything.

Thus, if a slave master tells his slave to work, and the slave says (s)he cannot, because (s)he is too sick, then the slave is no longer obedient to the slave master.

Thus, there is no need to speak of 'threats'. The fact of the matter is a Biblical warranted beating --- No threat necessary or required.

[EDIT] BTW, please stop being so 'daft'. As I stated prior, when reading in context, Ex. 21:2-11 is speaking about servants/slavery, even though not every Verse has the word slave/servant within it..

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What the rational reader does is read the whole passage and then determine what it means, not just a portion of it. After all you could just read verse 7 and say that it has nothing to do with slaves at all.

If you read the whole thing... i.e. including verse 9, which you conveniently missed off: "Masters treat your slaves the same way, giving up the use of threats, because you know that both you and they have the same master in heaven and there is no favouritism with him"

So in other words Paul is also Telling the masters to treat their slaves like God, assuring they achieve even more love.

it is certainly a good idea to read the whole argument in context. Because if you do, you see that Paul is speaking in support of slavery. He is saying that slavery is a good thing, so long as it is done the right way. He is certainly not saying what anyone who was actually opposed to slavery would say - that slavery is an evil that should be opposed, and that slaves should be set free. Read the Bible as carefully as you like, and you will find nobody saying that.

it's interesting to see - and this is something I've observed often - that Christians who defend the Bible against the charge of being a pro-slavery document soon end up echoing the arguments made by antebellum slavery themselves. "Well of course it's wrong to gratuitously punish slaves. In the South, a slave is seen as part of the family. They are well-treated, and only punished, like rebellious children, if they are disobedient."

The pro-slavery pastors certainly knew the verses you are referring to. They used them to build their cases that slavery was based on the Bible. And they were right.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

it is certainly a good idea to read the whole argument in context. Because if you do, you see that Paul is speaking in support of slavery. He is saying that slavery is a good thing, if you do it the right way. He is certainly not saying what anyone who was actually opposed to slavery would say - that slavery is an evil that should be opposed, and that slaves should be set free. Read the Bible as carefully as you like, and you will find nobody saying that.

it's interesting to see - and this is something I've observed often - that Christians who defend the Bible against the charge of being a pro-slavery document soon end up echoing the arguments made by antebellum slavery themselves. "Well of course it's wrong to gratuitously punish slaves. In the South, a slave is seen as part of the family. They are well-treated, and only punished, like rebellious children, if they are disobedient."

The pro-slavery pastors certainly knew the verses you are referring to. They used them to build their cases that slavery was based on the Bible. And they were right.

It is frustrating that they get into telling how well they are treated (which is false) all the while forgetting the fact that they are friggin slaves!

 

[cvanwey]

I was referring to the Atlantic Slave Trade and Christianity, so I wasn't waiving off anything.

Sure, the NT can justify the tran Atl. slave trade just as well. Please tell us what exactly such Verse below is supposed to motivate? According to the OT, what happens if such "slaves" are [disobedient]?

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It is NOT possible to justify the Atlantic Slave Trade using the Whole Bible

Meet Pastor Warren. An influential and learned Christian apologist, here he is making a lengthy speech in which he sets out, with exhaustive chapter-and-verse references, exactly how antebellum slavery was in accordance with God's will, and should be supported by any Bible-believing Christian:

http://civilwarbaptists.com/thisdayinhistory/1861-january-27/

Have a read of it. It's not long, but does make a clear and persuasive case.
A few highlights:
"Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible."

"Had God, the Great Law Giver, been opposed to slavery, he would perhaps have said, “thou shalt not hold property in man: thou shalt not enslave thy fellow being, for all men are born free and equal.” Instead of reproving the sin of covetousness, he would have denounced the sin of slavery; but instead of this denunciation, when He became the Ruler of his people, He established, regulated and perpetuated slavery by special enactment, and guaranteed the unmolested rights of masters to their slaves by Constitutional provision."

"The blessed Saviour descended from a slave-holder, Abraham. This “father of the faithful,” held as many bondmen, “born in his house and bought with his money,” as perhaps any slaveholder in the South. When he was chosen out, as the one “in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” not a word of Divine disapprobation, on account of his being a slave-holder was uttered. His descendants, the Jews, up to the time of their national dispersion, were as emphatically a slave-holding people as we Georgians are."

"He (Jesus) reproved them for their sins. Calling them the works of the flesh and of the devil. He denounced idolatry, covetousness, adultery, fornification, hypocrisy, and many other sins of less moral turpitude, but never once reproved them for holding slaves; though He alluded to it frequently, yet never with an expression of the slightest disapprobation."

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Meet Pastor Warren.

Well I can't actually access the site as it appears to be phishing. But I'm more interested in why you think Pastor Warren, writing 140 years ago better represents the Christian viewpoint than say, Gregory of Nyssa in the 5th century or Paul Copan in the 21st?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

it is certainly a good idea to read the whole argument in context. Because if you do, you see that Paul is speaking in support of slavery. He is saying that slavery is a good thing, so long as it is done the right way. He is certainly not saying what anyone who was actually opposed to slavery would say - that slavery is an evil that should be opposed, and that slaves should be set free. Read the Bible as carefully as you like, and you will find nobody saying that.

it's interesting to see - and this is something I've observed often - that Christians who defend the Bible against the charge of being a pro-slavery document soon end up echoing the arguments made by antebellum slavery themselves. "Well of course it's wrong to gratuitously punish slaves. In the South, a slave is seen as part of the family. They are well-treated, and only punished, like rebellious children, if they are disobedient."

The pro-slavery pastors certainly knew the verses you are referring to. They used them to build their cases that slavery was based on the Bible. And they were right.

The writers of the New Testament weren't opposed to slavery. But there is a sense that they thought it irrelevant - Galatians clearly shows that there should be no distinction between slave or free, and Paul berates the Corinthians for showing partiality when conducting a love feast - where the rich get in first and get the choice pickings.

"They are well-treated, and only punished, like rebellious children, if they are disobedient." The fact that the owners treated their adult slaves like children is testament to how woefully inadequate their theology is and was. I'm guessing that their children, when they grew up, moved away... but were the slaves allowed to do the same given that they were already grown up.

You can justify anything you want by being very selective about how you apply what the Bible says. But it you take all of the words of the New Testament and hold them up to scrutiny next to Antebellum slavery, the disparities pile up very quickly.

I would not say that the Bible is a pro-slavery document, nor an anti-slavery document. Slavery is just there - it is something to be used (properly), but not necessarily directly opposed.

it is the treatment of slaves (among others) that is the issue that the Bible deals with in detail. So the Bible just accepts slavery as something that is there, and then provides a way of making that manageable, which Antebellum slavery seems to have largely ignored.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Sure, the NT can justify the tran Atl. slave trade just as well. Please tell us what exactly such Verse below is supposed to motivate? According to the OT, what happens if such "slaves" are [disobedient]?

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters

But this is the law for Israelites, not for Christians (cf Acts 15) so According to the NT, if the slaves are disobedient, they still need to be treated with justice and fairness: 'Masters treat your slaves with justice and fairness because you know that you also have a master in heaven.'

Do you think that the Atlantic slave traders treated their slaves with justice and fairness?

 

[cvanwey]

But this is the law for Israelites, not for Christians (cf Acts 15) so According to the NT, if the slaves are disobedient, they still need to be treated with justice and fairness: 'Masters treat your slaves with justice and fairness because you know that you also have a master in heaven.'

Do you think that the Atlantic slave traders treated their slaves with justice and fairness?

Let's look at the instructions, or the guide, in complete context; shall we?:

Instructions for Christian Households
18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

21 Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

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

We have already established, using the Torah, that beating your slaves is warranted, and is not sinful. The Torah also established that slaves are to be purchased around you, and treated as property, for life.

We agreed that the Bible does not go into great detail, as to what warrants a justified beating. However, since the Bible goes out of it's way to tell the slave to obey their masters in everything, if they do not obey in everything, a beating is then "justified".

Disobedience is 'judged' by the slave master. Hence, if the slave does not do everything the master instructs, a beating is warranted.

So yes, the Atlantic slave traders treated their slaves with justice and fairness. If they disobeyed in ANYTHING, a beating is warranted.

This is based upon the instructed "Christian values".

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

It is frustrating that they get into telling how well they are treated (which is false) all the while forgetting the fact that they are friggin slaves!

It is not a question of what you or I think, but what they (at that time) thought. As far as I am aware Israel never ever suffered from any kind of slave revolt, which tells you that they were probably treated a lot better than in nations where slave revolts were regular occurrences and the guaranteed freedom of slaves that ran away was written into the Torah.

Peter J. Williams points out that the early English translations didn't use the word 'slave' anywhere. Servant was the term used throughout because that is what they saw it as, but culturally neither servant nor slave is a status we really have to deal with today (consider servants in manor houses 100 years ago and you will see that that particular way of life is almost gone).

As such we need to understand these terms as they would have not, how we would now. Consider that I suspect most in the Ancient Near East would think the USA as barbaric in the way it incarcerates people into prisons for years and years (I know I do). Culturally what we see as servants or slaves is not necessarily what was supposed to happen.

Go to a homeless person and say to them that if they work for a person they would be guaranteed a place to live and plenty of food for them and their family. Do you think that they would say 'no'?

...or go to a homeless person and say to them that if they work for a person they would be given a hovel to live in, subsistence food for them and their family, regular rape of their wives and daughters, sending away their sons somewhere else, being beaten for no good reason. Do you think that they would say 'yes'?

The difference in treatment shows that not only was the Atlantic slave trade immoral, but that servitude as the Jewish law depicts it is highly moral and may have even been sought after.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Let's look at the instructions, or the guide, in complete context; shall we?:

But you don't do you. You choose to stop before the instructions for Christian Households have ended.