Slavery, a Guide

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 9, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Wouldn't they base their decisions off of what the law said when it came to treating slaves?

Judges would base their decisions off of what the law (the whole law) said when it came to treating slaves. If they were selective in their use of the law, then clearly they weren't being impartial.

Give this some thought: If God wanted people to apply the law legalistically he would have appointed lawyers to rule on the subject. Instead he appointed judges and that is because he wants justice.

Clizby WampusCat said:
Just because they can go free does not make their enslavement moral. Also, how would they be able to pay the debt?

By this reasoning: Just because they can go free does not make imprisoning criminals moral!

In Jewish Law they pay their debt by working for their master. Read the Leviticus 25 where the debt is calculated to the next Jubilee. It also explains how family can redeem that debt.

So if you owe money to someone you either get someone else to pay it (family most likely) or pay it yourself in service (indentured servitude).

It is entirely possible that you work extra hard for your master and pay off your debt early. If he is a good master he will see this and ensure that you leave early. If he is a bad master you can take it to the judges for arbitration.

Another possibility is that you work extra hard for yourself - producing extra goods on your own plot of land (if you have one) or making extra items using cast offs from whatever is available - sell that, make a profit and put this towards your debt. This is pretty much what medieval serfdom was about - you tilled the owner's land and then your tended to your own farming.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 9, 2021

I keep looking at your responses and I keep thinking that you don't show much understanding of the law.

I wonder if this might reveal whether that is true or not. So here is a group of scenarios for you to ponder and give Judgement on according to the law:

1) A slave takes up a rod and beats his master to death.

2) A slave takes up a rod and beats his master until he is bedridden, and then dies a few days later.

3) A slave takes up a rod and beats his master, but after a day his master gets up again.

4) A slave hits his master, gouging out his eye

5) A slave hits his master, knocking out a tooth.

In each situation how would you apply the law and why?

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 9, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Judges would base their decisions off of what the law (the whole law) said when it came to treating slaves. If they were selective in their use of the law, then clearly they weren't being impartial.

Give this some thought: If God wanted people to apply the law legalistically he would have appointed lawyers to rule on the subject. Instead he appointed judges and that is because he wants justice.

Why give an instruction on beating a slave if God did not want to allow it? He should have said don't beat your slaves.

By this reasoning: Just because they can go free does not make imprisoning criminals moral!

Nope. Criminals in prison are not property.

In Jewish Law they pay their debt by working for their master. Read the Leviticus 25 where the debt is calculated to the next Jubilee. It also explains how family can redeem that debt.

Sure but not for all slaves.

So if you owe money to someone you either get someone else to pay it (family most likely) or pay it yourself in service (indentured servitude).

Sure but not for all slaves.

It is entirely possible that you work extra hard for your master and pay off your debt early. If he is a good master he will see this and ensure that you leave early. If he is a bad master you can take it to the judges for arbitration.

This is just speculation now. Some slaves could be inherited and made to be a slave forever.

Another possibility is that you work extra hard for yourself - producing extra goods on your own plot of land (if you have one) or making extra items using cast offs from whatever is available - sell that, make a profit and put this towards your debt. This is pretty much what medieval serfdom was about - you tilled the owner's land and then your tended to your own farming.

We are probably done. I am talking about people being treated as property and some slaves were slaves forever. You keep going to the debt slaves. I am not talking about those people even though indentured servitude is immoral.

cvanwey · Jun 9, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I keep looking at your responses and I keep thinking that you don't show much understanding of the law.

Is this directed to me or @Clizby WampusCat ? I'll take a stab at it, just in case it's to me.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
So here is a group of scenarios for you to ponder and give Judgement on according to the law:

Yes, we could kind of ponder some of them, because, well, the laws, under the yolk of "slavery", are somewhat [vague, incomplete, and/or ambiguous].

Please remember, as I keep expressing... If there exists no such God given 'slavery caveats', then all other laws might apply equally for all (i.e.) 'an eye for an eye', etc etc etc... However, since God apparently decided to weigh in on the treatment of 'slaves', as having differing standards verses the free, we leave ourselves scratching our heads in some instances - where God cares not to clarify entirely.

Meaning, if you are going to bring up special circumstances or special considerations, make sure to go the entire nine yards. Do not bring up the topic, then leave it incomplete. Doing so seems haphazard... So, without further ado.... Here we go!

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
1) A slave takes up a rod and beats his master to death.

The Bible only instructs what the master can do to the slave without retribution. The Bible fails to express what happens if the slave retaliates and/or acts towards their master. Hence, you are left with mere assumption alone.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
2) A slave takes up a rod and beats his master until he is bedridden, and then dies a few days later.

Same as directly above

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
3) A slave takes up a rod and beats his master, but after a day his master gets up again.

Same as above

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
4) A slave hits his master, gouging out his eye

Same as above

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
5) A slave hits his master, knocking out a tooth.

Same as above

This is a point you either are not grasping, or are blatantly ignoring.... God's law tells the free about the golden rule --> (the second greatest Commandment). However, under the confines of 'slavery', such law does not look to apply. The topic of 'slavery' merits exception to this otherwise universal law.

Furthermore, if a free person was to knock out a fellow free person's eye, they must compensate them and/or be punished. If you knock out a slave's eye, the master is to merely let them go. Which is likely already okay with the master anyways; as I doubt a master would want to blind a still deemed usable working slave.

As I already told you prior, this is why it was customary to whip your slaves, if you were wanting to hurt them or punish them. Just don't knock out their eye. Such caveats do not exist between the free.

And now, you are left trying to 'defend' it.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 9, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Why give an instruction on beating a slave if God did not want to allow it? He should have said don't beat your slaves.

Why give an instruction on not beating a neighbour if God did not want to allow it? He should have said don't beat your neighbours.

Clizby WampusCat said:
Nope. Criminals in prison are not property.

Oh but they are. They belong to the prison service. They cannot just walk away. If the prison service so dictates they can just be moved around either to another cell, or to another prison. They have to work in a set place. They have a set term that they have to work towards and if they show good behaviour they can get away earlier.

Clizby WampusCat said:
Sure but not for all slaves.

This is just speculation now. Some slaves could be inherited and made to be a slave forever.

Yes for all slaves - you still appear to be legalistically applying the law instead of justly applying the law. However a person gets into the slave system it does not matter. Torah explicitly says that they had to treat the foreigner the same way as they did themselves.

What do you suppose happened when a master dies? That all slaves go free, all debt cleared? Not much of an inheritance for the children.

Clizby WampusCat said:
We are probably done. I am talkig about people being treated as property and some slaves were slaves forever. You keep going to the debt slaves. I am not talking about those people even though indentured servitude is immoral.

I keep talking about the debt slaves because they are the ONLY laws the Israelites had about how to treat their servants. Every single instance of 'slaves' involves a debt of some kind, whether being unable to pay a fine, or having been bought off of a foreigner or having been captured in battle (though in this case the debt is not financial).

If you ignore the laws about Hebrew debt slaves, then there are no other laws... which means there are no slaves since there is no law to keep them there... Either that or the general laws on slaves applied to all forms of slaves (and this is specifically stated in a couple of places).

Read through the Torah like I did - there is a lot that is not relevant, such as the ceremonial laws, but pretty much all of the civil laws have some bearing on the interpretation of the 'slave laws' in your OP and barring the discussion on how people become slaves in the first place, all of the slave laws are about 'debt slaves'. The sensible bit of reasoning is that these laws also apply to any servant in the land, regardless whether purchased from foreign nations, or gained by taking on someone else's debt.

You and I can agree that owning people as property is a bad thing. But not everyone agrees with us and there are countries that still practice slavery (even some that have nominally made it illegal). if you had the money and opportunity to buy one would you do so, or would your ethical stance be such that you sit back and allow someone else to own them as long as you don't?

Or would you get a loan to buy them? Whether you pay for them out of your pocket, or with a loan you are now out of pocket, so wouldn't you want your new purchase to pay you back somehow or do you think that they should just walk away, leaving you out of pocket for freeing them from foreign slavery? If they owe you the money you forked out, it doesn't matter what way you look at it, they are tied to you in some way. You are free to dictate their terms of repayment over, say, a period of six years for example, or maybe the amount was so large it requires 10 years or 15 years or whatever. But maybe there are ways of making the loss of money worthwhile - such as seeing them change their ways, become a productive member of society. And what if you dropped dead suddenly during that time they were paying off the debt. Would that suddenly release them from the debt, or wouldn't you want it stipulated in your will that the money owed is now to go to your inheritors or would you expect your children to lose out just because you died before the debt was repaid?

The first few times I read through the Torah, I didn't like what I saw very much. Some of it was good, but a lot was bizarre or not relevant... or so I thought.

It was only when I came across the idea of restorative Justice 24 years ago that changed my mind. Afterwards as I looked through Torah, I marvelled at how the it worked, how the laws were all about trying to be fair restoring the relationships of people with each other and with God. Even some of the difficult or bizarre laws make more sense when you see them as some form of protection for victims (although some circumstances are ones that just would not occur today).

The law is not some legalistic set of laws that allow the rich and powerful to dominate society (as Jesus made clear in his preaching), they are a set of guidelines that work to enable everyone to live happily together and bring people to freedom and friendship with each other and thereby bring people into a relationship with the ultimate goal, God.

mindlight · Jun 10, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
There are different rules of slavery in the OT for different people, this is a reference for people when talking about this practice. Nowhere in the bible does God say that slavery is wrong. These verses are not the totality of the bible describing slavery and Gods attitude toward the practice but they are the major ones. How can these verse be reconciled with a good and moral god? In summary of the verses below:

1. Hebrew slaves with Hebrew masters can be released after 6 years unless the master "trick" them into staying by supplying them with a wife.

2. All slaves are property and considered money just like an ox.

3. Only Hebrew slaves are to be released on the year of Jubilee, not all slaves.

4. All slaves can be beaten but Hebrew slaves cannot be beaten to death.

5. If a male Hebrew rapes a slave he will not be put to death if he gives restitution to God, if he rapes a non-slave he shall be put to death.

6. God says that the Hebrews can buy slaves from the nations around them, give them to their descendants and beat them without penalty. Sounds like American slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries.

1. Male (some female rules mixed in) Hebrew Slaves.

Exodus 21:1-6 ESV

Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave,a]"> he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. Ex 21:1-3.

This is specifically for male Hebrew slaves. It says that male Hebrew slaves can be purchased to serve for six years, then released without any compensation. This mentions purchasing as property and that they are not free to leave since after 6 years they go free. It also sets rules for a wife of the male Hebrew slave. She will go free with him if he was married when he was purchased. It goes on to say:

If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever. Ex 21:4-6.

If a purchased Hebrew slave is married after he is purchased the wife and the children are not his but his masters. If the slave wants to leave after six years he must go alone. If he loves his wife and children then he must submit to being a slave forever since his wife and kids are the masters forever. So if a master wants to keep his male Hebrew slave he can “trick” him by supplying him a wife and hoping he wants to stay with her. But notice if the master supplies his male Hebrew slave with a wife, the wife and children are his slaves forever, the master gets new slaves for free even if the male Hebrew slave leaves.

Exodus 21:16 ESV

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

This says that if a Hebrew steals a Hebrew man (not a woman) and sells him, he shall be executed along with the purchaser. This section is still talking about Hebrew men since in Leviticus 25 God instructs them that they can steal men from surrounding nations. We will get to that later.

Exodus 21:20-21

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

The is still talking about Hebrew slaves since beating them is allowed in Leviticus 25 if they are not Hebrew. So a master can beat a slave pretty severely but just not to death. According to this a master can beat his slave pretty bad (not in the eye or tooth as we will see later) as long as the slaves does not die within two days. If the slave dies as a result after two days it seem that the master has no repercussions. It also explicitly states the slave (a real person) is the masters money or property, not a person, and that is the reason given why no punishment is required by God.

Exodus 21:26-27 ESV

When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

So no master can beat the eyes or teeth of male or female Hebrew slaves. The punishment is only that the slave has to go free. Notice the master can beat them other places such as the back of their heads, back, bottom of feet etc. with no penalty.

Exodus 21:28-32 ESV

When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. If it gores a man's son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. Ex 21:28-31

This seems reasonable, basically if you know your ox will kill people and you do nothing about it the owner and ox are executed. This is only talking about a Hebrew person. What if the person the ox kills is a slave?

If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekelse of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. Ex 21:32

Different rules. The ox owner does not die but has to pay the owner for the slave. This is because the slave is considered property as is said in Ex 21:21. Restitution is on order just as if he destroyed another person’s ox. The slave is not a person but property just like an ox as seen with the next verses:

Exodus 21:33-36 ESV

“When a man opens a pit, or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restoration. He shall give money to its owner, and the dead beast shall be his.

“When one man's ox butts another's, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and share its price, and the dead beast also they shall share. Or if it is known that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall repay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his.

In these situations an ox is killed by someone that is not the owner. The owner is given money to satisfy the death of his ox as restitution. Just like when an ox kills a slave as shown above. There is no difference between an ox and a slave to God.

Lev 25:39-42 ESV

“If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. For they are my servants,e]">[e] whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. Lev 25:39-43

God is talking about Hebrew’s here. You shall not enslave your brother; however, in Exodus 21 God has rules for owning Hebrew male slaves. Maybe God is talking about an actual brother. Notice here that is only Hebrew male slaves that are released at the year of jubilee, not all slaves.

Lev 25:47-55 ESV

“If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger's clan then after he is sold he may be redeemed. Lev 25:47-49

God makes provision for Hebrews enslaved to non-Hebrews to be set free. God is playing favorites.

One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle or his cousin may redeem him, or a close relative from his clan may redeem him. Or if he grows rich he may redeem himself. He shall calculate with his buyer from the year when he sold himself to him until the year of jubilee, and the price of his sale shall vary with the number of years. The time he was with his owner shall be rated as the time of a hired worker. If there are still many years left, he shall pay proportionately for his redemption some of his sale price. If there remain but a few years until the year of jubilee, he shall calculate and pay for his redemption in proportion to his years of service. He shall treat him as a worker hired year by year. He shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight. Lev 25:48-53

Here God is saying a Hebrew slave with a non-Hebrew master can be redeemed and sets rules for compensation.

And if he is not redeemed by these means, then he and his children with him shall be released in the year of jubilee. For it is to me that the people of Israel are servants. They are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Lev 25:54-55

Here it states that only Hebrew slaves with non-Hebrew masters can be released on the year of jubilee. Non Hebrew slaves apparently do not need to be released.

2. Female Hebrew Slaves.

Exodus 21:7-11 ESV

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. Ex 21:1

Here a Hebrew father can sell his Hebrew daughter to another as a wife. The woman has no say and does not have to agree or volunteer.

If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. Ex 21:8

If the master is not pleased with her as a wife, then the master must not sell her to foreigners and must redeem her. Notice she has no choice in the matter at all, she is a purchased slave to the master. The master has another option if he is not pleased with her as a wife:

If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. Ex 21:9

The Master does not have to set her free if he designates her for his son. Then he can treat her like a daughter, see Ex 21:1, he can then sell her to others and get compensation since she is to be treated like a daughter. This seems to be another loophole to setting a slave free. If the master also does not designate the female Hebrew slave to his son then:

If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. Ex 21:10-11

So if the master wants a different wife and does not have a son then she must be treated as the new wife and set free with no compensation. But notice the woman is the master’s slave and property to do with as he wishes.

Lev 19:20-22 ESV

“If a man lies sexually with a woman who is a slave, assigned to another man and not yet ransomed or given her freedom, a distinction shall be made. Lev 19:20

This is talking about Hebrew slaves because it says the woman is not yet set free. Only Hebrew women slaves can be set free by Gods rules.

They shall not be put to death, because she was not free;… Lev 19:20

The sin must be rape here, not consensual because the penalty is death. So if a Hebrew female slave is raped the rapist is not to be put to death. If a free Hebrew woman is raped the rapist will be put to death as stated in other laws.

but he shall bring his compensation to the Lord, to the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven for the sin that he has committed. Lev 19:21-22

If a man rapes a Hebrew female slave then the man can pay restitution to God and go on with his life. As long as a man has plenty of money he can rape as many Hebrew female slaves as he wants without further penalty.

3. All Slaves

Lev 22:10-11 ESV

A lay person shall not eat of a holy thing; no foreign guest of the priest or hired worker shall eat of a holy thing, but if a priest buys a slave as his property for money, the slave may eat of it, and anyone born in his house may eat of his food.

Here God points out again that slaves are the master’s property and money.

4. Non-Hebrew Slaves

Lev 25: 44-46 ESV

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Here the Hebrews can buy slaves from the nations and clans around as well as strangers (non Hebrews) that were born in the land. God says here again the slaves are the master’s property. It also says that non Hebrew slaves can be inherited by descendants of the master, just like property or as God uses as possessions. So God thinks of non Hebrew slaves as possessions and to be treated by property.

Also notice that it says that Hebrew slaves are not to be treated ruthlessly. In Exodus it says that Hebrew slaves can be beaten as has already been discussed. So God must not think beating slaves severely as long as they don’t die within a couple days is not ruthless.

There was no slavery in Eden and there will be none in the new heavens and the new earth. Slavery is a feature of a fallen world.

The rules on Hebrew slaves have implications for Christian slaves also. Ultimately for a Master to own a Christian slave would be untenable as he would be obliged to offer them freedom periodically. Also the Christian idea of slavery outlined in Philemon clearly renders most examples of slavery and institutional expression of it untenable. It would be hard to justify human trafficking from scripture.

The bible speaks to all times and places and slavery remains a feature of our world today especially in the Islamic world and arguably in various atheist dictatorships also although they would never call it that. Even in the West people are "wage slaves" in many cases even if they possess the theoretical ability to change their circumstances. Very often the sacrifices involved means they are unlikely to make those choices. So the Master - Slave relationship remains as real today as it has ever been. So the real question as with all imperfect fallen manmade institutions is how to deal with that reality.

The response of the church led by figures like Wilberforce has been to liberate slaves and end the slave trade. In the same way most Christians support welfare for all rather than just deserving Christians as they recognize that is a more efficient mechanism and means testing generally does not work. I see this as the best strategy to adopt in the modern world but in principle having atheist or Muslim slaves would not be a problem, even for a Christian, on any absolute level. It is completely untenable for a Christian in the Western world today to own slaves however.

cvanwey · Jun 10, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I keep talking about the debt slaves because they are the ONLY laws the Israelites had about how to treat their servants. Every single instance of 'slaves' involves a debt of some kind, whether being unable to pay a fine, or having been bought off of a foreigner or having been captured in battle (though in this case the debt is not financial).

This assertion is categorically false.

1. You can apparently be BORN into slavery. (i.e.)

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.

2. Children are likely not indebted to anyone yet. (i.e.)

You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property,

3. Purchased children are apparently never allowed to leave. But at least, if you are an Israelite, you are granted special favor, based upon your bloodline (i.e)

passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
If you ignore the laws about Hebrew debt slaves, then there are no other laws...

The only one here 'ignoring' anything looks to be you.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
You and I can agree that owning people as property is a bad thing. But not everyone agrees with us

Yes, God disagrees with you.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
The first few times I read through the Torah, I didn't like what I saw very much.

But it would appear your conformation bias propelled you to later instead rationalize the parts you did not like; rather than to conclude that either 1) such a God authors 'immoral acts', or 2) that maybe this is just one of many man made books in circulation.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 10, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Why give an instruction on not beating a neighbour if God did not want to allow it? He should have said don't beat your neighbours.

Not the same thing. No where does it say that you can beat your neighbor with no punishment as long as the neighbor survives a day or two.

Oh but they are. They belong to the prison service. They cannot just walk away. If the prison service so dictates they can just be moved around either to another cell, or to another prison. They have to work in a set place. They have a set term that they have to work towards and if they show good behaviour they can get away earlier.

No, prisoners are not owned as property.

Yes for all slaves - you still appear to be legalistically applying the law instead of justly applying the law. However a person gets into the slave system it does not matter. Torah explicitly says that they had to treat the foreigner the same way as they did themselves.

Nope, I am following what Leviticus explicitly says. That slaves can be kept forever.

What do you suppose happened when a master dies? That all slaves go free, all debt cleared? Not much of an inheritance for the children.

Yes Lev says they can be bequeathed to your children. So when the master dies the children now own the slave as property.

I keep talking about the debt slaves because they are the ONLY laws the Israelites had about how to treat their servants. Every single instance of 'slaves' involves a debt of some kind, whether being unable to pay a fine, or having been bought off of a foreigner or having been captured in battle (though in this case the debt is not financial).

If you ignore the laws about Hebrew debt slaves, then there are no other laws... which means there are no slaves since there is no law to keep them there... Either that or the general laws on slaves applied to all forms of slaves (and this is specifically stated in a couple of places).

Read through the Torah like I did - there is a lot that is not relevant, such as the ceremonial laws, but pretty much all of the civil laws have some bearing on the interpretation of the 'slave laws' in your OP and barring the discussion on how people become slaves in the first place, all of the slave laws are about 'debt slaves'. The sensible bit of reasoning is that these laws also apply to any servant in the land, regardless whether purchased from foreign nations, or gained by taking on someone else's debt.

You and I can agree that owning people as property is a bad thing. But not everyone agrees with us and there are countries that still practice slavery (even some that have nominally made it illegal). if you had the money and opportunity to buy one would you do so, or would your ethical stance be such that you sit back and allow someone else to own them as long as you don't?

Or would you get a loan to buy them? Whether you pay for them out of your pocket, or with a loan you are now out of pocket, so wouldn't you want your new purchase to pay you back somehow or do you think that they should just walk away, leaving you out of pocket for freeing them from foreign slavery? If they owe you the money you forked out, it doesn't matter what way you look at it, they are tied to you in some way. You are free to dictate their terms of repayment over, say, a period of six years for example, or maybe the amount was so large it requires 10 years or 15 years or whatever. But maybe there are ways of making the loss of money worthwhile - such as seeing them change their ways, become a productive member of society. And what if you dropped dead suddenly during that time they were paying off the debt. Would that suddenly release them from the debt, or wouldn't you want it stipulated in your will that the money owed is now to go to your inheritors or would you expect your children to lose out just because you died before the debt was repaid?

The first few times I read through the Torah, I didn't like what I saw very much. Some of it was good, but a lot was bizarre or not relevant... or so I thought.

It was only when I came across the idea of restorative Justice 24 years ago that changed my mind. Afterwards as I looked through Torah, I marvelled at how the it worked, how the laws were all about trying to be fair restoring the relationships of people with each other and with God. Even some of the difficult or bizarre laws make more sense when you see them as some form of protection for victims (although some circumstances are ones that just would not occur today).

The law is not some legalistic set of laws that allow the rich and powerful to dominate society (as Jesus made clear in his preaching), they are a set of guidelines that work to enable everyone to live happily together and bring people to freedom and friendship with each other and thereby bring people into a relationship with the ultimate goal, God.

So I am over this conversation but here are two points from our discussion that I disagree with:

1. You think that it is ok that people are owned as property as long as they have a method to become free from being property. This is wrong that anyone is owned as property for any amount of time.

2. You think that God could not have come up with a better way to solve the problems of debt other than writing rules for owning people as property. A good God would have come up with a better way.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 10, 2021

I know you said you were done, but since Mindlight has reminded me of the OP, I wondered if you have changed your opinion of any of the following points you originally posted, or whether these really represent the whole picture or just a subset of them.

Clizby WampusCat said:
1. Hebrew slaves with Hebrew masters can be released after 6 years unless the master "trick" them into staying by supplying them with a wife.

2. All slaves are property and considered money just like an ox.

3. Only Hebrew slaves are to be released on the year of Jubilee, not all slaves.

4. All slaves can be beaten but Hebrew slaves cannot be beaten to death.

5. If a male Hebrew rapes a slave he will not be put to death if he gives restitution to God, if he rapes a non-slave he shall be put to death.

6. God says that the Hebrews can buy slaves from the nations around them, give them to their descendants and beat them without penalty. Sounds like American slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'll add my comments one by one.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 10, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Not the same thing. No where does it say that you can beat your neighbor with no punishment as long as the neighbor survives a day or two.

Ex 21: 18-19
If men fight, and one strikes his neighbor with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed, and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person’s loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed.

Unless of course you think that striking someone with a stone or fist is not the same as beating them. In which case you open up a whole can of worms where you can attack your neighbour with a rod, beat them to death and this is not punishable by death. [BTW you should look up Hebrew parallelism, it's a thing].

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 10, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
No, prisoners are not owned as property.

I looked up a definition of property. It would be interesting to see what you think of it or whether you have a better one: 'a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.'

Not very useful, as such a term could apply to one's spouse, children, though I agree it doesn't then apply to prisoners.

On the other hand this then poses a problem for spouse and children - clearly by the way you are using the term they belong to you for life and it didn't cost a penny (well, in theory anyway).

It is more significant perhaps because ancient cultures had bride prices - i.e. you paid the price for your wife to their guardian (usually parents). And for this it really was for a lifetime!

cvanwey · Jun 10, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Ex 21: 18-19
If men fight, and one strikes his neighbor with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed, and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person’s loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed.

Unless of course you think that striking someone with a stone or fist is not the same as beating them. In which case you open up a whole can of worms where you can attack your neighbour with a rod, beat them to death and this is not punishable by death. [BTW you should look up Hebrew parallelism, it's a thing].

Already addressed in post #575. If you wish to hash it out, let me know?

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 10, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
1. You think that it is ok that people are owned as property as long as they have a method to become free from being property. This is wrong that anyone is owned as property for any amount of time.

2. You think that God could not have come up with a better way to solve the problems of debt other than writing rules for owning people as property. A good God would have come up with a better way.

1. I don't think that it is ok that people are owned as property at all. The fact that they have a method of getting free, is precisely why what the Bible is describing is not 'property' in the sense that you seem to be applying it, though see my comments above on the meaning of property. I also think you have a naive idea about what to do with your enemies after they have been captured: set them free so they can attack you again (Survival of the Fittest means you wouldn't live long enough to pass your genes on, thankfully

)

2. Again, I'm not in agreement with your statement, because the way you seem to be defining property is not how the slavery in Torah is shown to be working. A good God would come up with the best way - perhaps he did and your own prejudices are preventing you from seeing the practicalities of how it works.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 10, 2021

cvanwey said:
Please remember that Verses 12-19 do not speak about the topic of slavery. You keep ignoring this...

All Chapters flop in and out of the topic of what slavery practices entail specifically. Yet again, the rules differ between the free and the enslaved.

verses 2-11 are about slaves, verses 12 onwards are about personal injury. The fact that verses about slaves pop up all over the place is the indicator to realise that they need to be read and understood in the context of the whole law, not just the laws on slavery.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 10, 2021

cvanwey said:
LOL. Verse 18-19 speaks about a 'quarrel' between two free males. Hence, some reason is furnished as to why the scuffle happened to begin with, which caused an injury... It does not state anything along the lines of... "if a male strikes another male" (alone)....

Verses 20-21 speak about a master beating his slave. That's it. No reason is furnished for the beating. Just as long as the slave does not die apparently.

As you already alluded to prior, what if the slave is no longer deemed useful - (due to old age, being decrepit, or other). The slave master can knock out their eye and send them packing. Please remember what Verse 26 states. "Compensation" is to merely get rid of them:

"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."

I don't have any commentaries to confirm what the meaning actually is for these verses, my Bible says, 'fight', ESV & CSB both have 'quarrel' and the online commentary I looked at refers to 'conflict'. all of which could mean different things, however I don't think it matters.

verses 20-21 are parallel with verses 18-19. The both deal with an attacker and a victim and neither indicate (or care) who is the instigator of the attack is, only the outcome. This indicates that the reasons for such treatment in both cases is up to the parties involved. Further parallels can be seen when death occurs as a result of the attack, both result in the same outcome. Both allow a period of time for recovery (though verse 19 does not specify how long, and verse 21 does specify a maximum. Both then require payment of some kind. Verse 19 to the victim, verse 21 is essentially to the victim, since it prevents any kind of requirement to repay sick leave.

“The aim of this law was not to place the slave at the master’s mercy but to restrict the master’s power over him.” (Kaiser)

With regards to no longer being useful, it seems the height of cruelty to knock out their eye and let them go free, when you could just let them go free. You may be forgetting that the master is a believer in YHWH and thus took the issue of sin very seriously. Attacking anyone for no good reason seems to be exactly the sort of thing that falls out of the category of 'love your neighbour'

Dt 24:14 "You must not oppress a lowly and poor servant...", Dt 15:13 - "If you set them free, you must not send them away empty-handed. You must supply them generously from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress - as the Lord your God has blessed you, you must give to them. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you."

Even the elderly and poorly were to be looked after. When someone came into your home they were to be treated as part of your family ('household' is the term often used), with the exception that they had no inheritance from you (though they might have it from elsewhere).

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 10, 2021

cvanwey said:
Do you really believe what you are saying? I doubt it. Deep down, I bet you feel the same as I. The passages about 'slavery' are of pure human concoction; which begs a follow up question... What else in there is of human concoction?

Actually, yes I do believe what I am saying, else I wouldn't be saying it. I'm guessing that you don't believe what you are saying, though since you are so ready to attribute such falsehoods to others.

You really are daft if you think that I think it is a pure human concoction. I don't have a problem with the idea of human input, but at the heart of it is a God who defines a way of living with each other that was certainly radical for the time it was articulated and seems to be quite radical today. That then feeds in to specific renderings that are not as relevant today (and have also been superseded by a different covenant).

cvanwey said:
If you agreed with everything the Bible says, you would just own it. But instead, we are all reading as you attempt to 'spin' what the Bible says.

I do own it, I just don't agree with they way you interpret everything the Bible says.

cvanwey · Jun 10, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
verses 2-11 are about slaves, verses 12 onwards are about personal injury. The fact that verses about slaves pop up all over the place is the indicator to realise that they need to be read and understood in the context of the whole law, not just the laws on slavery.

Yes, and you either 1) do not understand the 'context', 2) or representing cognitive dissonance, or 3) playing games.

"Slavery" is a specialty category. Hence, has special rules applied. "Pregnancy" is also a specialty category. Hence, also has special rules applied.

Case/point... Look at Verses 22-25, regarding the rules for a "free pregnant woman" situation. The Bible looks to be fairly specific about the repercussions against harming a "pregnant woman":

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 woman’s 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.

Alternatively, now compare this to what the Bible instructs of a 'slavery' situation, via Verses 20-21:

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.

Simply compare the [FREE pregnant woman] verses a [slave].

The case for the 'pregnant woman' has a very specific case, with very specific consequences. Alternatively, the instructions for the 'slave' are vague.

Sure, you could assume that the repercussions are the same, but this would be a very large assumption; and would likely only be wishful thinking.... All you need to do is read all other direct passages, when they speak of 'slavery'.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 10, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
1. Hebrew slaves with Hebrew masters can be released after 6 years unless the master "trick" them into staying by supplying them with a wife.

I agree with the first half of this, and my hope is that you now no longer think that the master is using any kind of deceit (Ex 20:16. Lev 19:18, Lev 25:43,Dt 16: 19, Dt 24:14), though I think the reasons why the master might hold on to the wife are ambiguous, so we can only speculate on what they might be, but trickery or enticement is unlikely to be one of them.

cvanwey · Jun 10, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I don't have any commentaries to confirm what the meaning actually is for these verses, my Bible says, 'fight', ESV & CSB both have 'quarrel' and the online commentary I looked at refers to 'conflict'. all of which could mean different things, however I don't think it matters. verses 20-21 are parallel with verses 18-19. The both deal with an attacker and a victim and neither indicate (or care) who is the instigator of the attack is, only the outcome. This indicates that the reasons for such treatment in both cases is up to the parties involved. Further parallels can be seen when death occurs as a result of the attack, both result in the same outcome. Both allow a period of time for recovery (though verse 19 does not specify how long, and verse 21 does specify a maximum. Both then require payment of some kind. Verse 19 to the victim, verse 21 is essentially to the victim, since it prevents any kind of requirement to repay sick leave.

False. The outcome is not the same. In Verses 18-19, the injured party remains free. In 20-21, the injured party remains enslaved, likely for life. Verse 18-19 specifies what type of compensation for the victim, more or less. Verse 20-21 do not speak of any type of compensation for the victim. Only that the slave master is to be 'punished' if the slave actually dies. Otherwise. the master is not to be "punished"; which then implies absolutely no compensation to the victim at all.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
“The aim of this law was not to place the slave at the master’s mercy but to restrict the master’s power over him.” (Kaiser)

You are too funny

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
With regards to no longer being useful, it seems the height of cruelty to knock out their eye and let them go free, when you could just let them go free. You may be forgetting that the master is a believer in YHWH and thus took the issue of sin very seriously. Attacking anyone for no good reason seems to be exactly the sort of thing that falls out of the category of 'love your neighbour'

I already addressed this prior. An all powerful and all loving God would not both instruct the golden rule while also providing an instruction manual for 'slavery' practices.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Dt 15:13 - "If you set them free, you must not send them away empty-handed. You must supply them generously from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress - as the Lord your God has blessed you, you must give to them. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you."

Wow, I noticed you omitted Verse 12? Was that an accident? This passage applies to VOLUNTEER HEBREW servants alone

But nice try, yet again

(i.e.)

12 If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. 13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. etc etc etc........

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Even the elderly and poorly were to be looked after. When someone came into your home they were to be treated as part of your family ('household' is the term often used), with the exception that they had no inheritance from you (though they might have it from elsewhere).

Nope.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 10, 2021

mindlight said:
There was no slavery in Eden and there will be none in the new heavens and the new earth. Slavery is a feature of a fallen world.

The rules on Hebrew slaves have implications for Christian slaves also. Ultimately for a Master to own a Christian slave would be untenable as he would be obliged to offer them freedom periodically. Also the Christian idea of slavery outlined in Philemon clearly renders most examples of slavery and institutional expression of it untenable. It would be hard to justify human trafficking from scripture.

The bible speaks to all times and places and slavery remains a feature of our world today especially in the Islamic world and arguably in various atheist dictatorships also although they would never call it that. Even in the West people are "wage slaves" in many cases even if they possess the theoretical ability to change their circumstances. Very often the sacrifices involved means they are unlikely to make those choices. So the Master - Slave relationship remains as real today as it has ever been. So the real question as with all imperfect fallen manmade institutions is how to deal with that reality.

The response of the church led by figures like Wilberforce has been to liberate slaves and end the slave trade. In the same way most Christians support welfare for all rather than just deserving Christians as they recognize that is a more efficient mechanism and means testing generally does not work. I see this as the best strategy to adopt in the modern world but in principle having atheist or Muslim slaves would not be a problem, even for a Christian, on any absolute level. It is completely untenable for a Christian in the Western world today to own slaves however.

Ok, could god not have told the Israelites to knock it off on the slave thing? He did not write rules to regulate lying or murder etc. He told them those things were wrong, He made regulations of slaves instead of telling them it was wrong to own people as property. God knew there would be murder and lying throughout history but chose to tell people these things were wrong, not so for slavery. The most likely answer is that these rules were written by people that wanted to have slaves.

You said we have slaves today, I agree yet your God does nothing about it when He could stop it.

Slavery, a Guide

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

See in the dark

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads