Slavery, a Guide

[OldWiseGuy]

It is not the fact that the Hebrews used to have slaves but that the God of the bible and teh God Christians worship wrote specific instructions for slavery and many of the rules are pretty brutal. If this God exists and inspired the Bible He cannot be good.

It has worked out pretty good for those that worship this evil God.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Misogyny means prejudice against women. The law primarily is about providing protection for women (even though it might not be treating them equally).

And no one evens asks if the woman needs or wants protection.

This particular part of the law, according to Copan, is case law and therefore could apply equally to male and female (i.e. a woman could go free but could swear permanent service in the same way as the man). My knowledge of Hebrew is not enough to confirm that, but I don't have any reason to suppose Copan is lying or mistaken (both of which ought to be easy to prove).

Once again I don't see this written in the text. If it is true why do you need a book written by a sinful man to clarify a book inspired by a perfect god?

A man doesn't have to swear eternal service in order to get her back - he can serve an additional 7 years and here a master might legitimately (though unethically) use such bribery to get additional service.

Where does it say this. It says the servant will be the masters property for life.

Consider the scenario. The man sells himself to service for 7 years. During that time he marries a woman. At the end of the 7th year he goes free - no debt... but no money either unless he has relatives willing to help out (but not willing to prevent the selling of their relative in the first place).

The following are possible:
1) Man goes into some kind of work situation meaning the wife/children can be looked after = Master releases wife (though he doesn't have to - he might ask for the Bride Price instead).
2) Man goes into destitution and will likely have to sell himself back into slavery again = Master is not going to release wife/children into starvation particularly when he has responsibility for them (guardianship based on original 'ownership')
3) Man decides to sell himself back to service for another seven years. At the end of the 7 years he can go free and since he entered service with a wife he can legitimately leave with her now. The master will also have gotten his money's worth of service since the servant will have served for the full term. - this is similar to the story of Jacob and his service of Laban for 14 years for his wives (though there, Laban clearly is unscrupulous).
4) Man loves his master and decides that he wants to stay permanently so makes a public display.

Regarding the children - it would have been expected that they would stay with their mother (as is common even today), but once they reach adulthood (circa age 13) they would be treated as any other Hebrew. Even if they were considered slaves (and I don't think that this is indicated) they would only have to serve until the next 7th year anyway.

Where in this text does it say the servant will only serve for another 7 years if he decides to stay with his wife that was given to him by his master? Also, there are also many possible scenario's that could happen as well. Assuming the most charitable situation is not indicated in the text. The fact is that the master can give the servant a wife and force him to stay if he wants to stay with his children and does not ever have to let them go.

“These are the ordinances that you will set before them:

Hebrew Servants
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out free without paying anything. 3 If he came in by himself he will go out by himself; if he had a wife when he came in, then his wife will go out with him. 4 If his master gave him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters, the wife and the children will belong to her master, and he will go out by himself. 5 But if the servant should declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorpost, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. Ex 21:1-6 NET.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And you see there is?

Yes, just don't pierce the ear.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What could the offense be that deserves a beating like this?

What offences have new testament Christians committed to be continually beat over the head with the old testament by unbelievers?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why should it be agreed by everyone? It clearly isn't even today as there are a number of cultures that still consider people as property or money and with none of the mitigating laws that the Israelites had.

Can you and I agree that owning other people as property is wrong?

I still think you are reading modern thinking into ancient worlds. Based on the few verses covered so far, it is far from clear that the Israelites were ever considered property or money. Even women's bride price indicated that they had value, not that they were property.

That does not matter and I hope that was the case. The fact is the the Bible allows people to be purchased as property.

I'm glad you think racism is wrong, but a hundred years ago it would have been quite acceptable and normal. In some countries this would have resulted in persecution (USA, Germany for example) and that would have been considered right at the time.

So, does that make it right? I say no. Can you and I agree that racism is wrong?

Apart from the problem of moral objectivity only being possible if there is some objective moral giver, you are missing the point of this discussion on the issue of slavery in the Old Testament law. "The past is another country; they do things differently there." (Hartley).

Their system worked for them, whether we liked it or not.

It worked for the slaves that were slaves against their will and beaten? It worked for Israel is not a good defense.

You can get all indignant about the fact that slaves could be sold, but would be quite happy that whole families starved to death because of debts and failures?

Yo miss the point. Could not God have solved the problem of starvation without using slavery to solve it?

You can get all indignant about the fact that slaves could be beaten, but miss the point that there is a law that implies that this is not a good activity (and that is just in the few verses we have covered).

Yet in Gods word He allowed slaves to be beaten. If God did not want to allow that why did not god make it more clear? These verses were used as justification of American slavery.

Would you be complaining if these law wasn't there at all? Would you even consider it? The fact that there is a law means that they did consider it and tried to find a solution that provided that people would not starve nor be out of pocket for someone else's failings (check out the laws on oxen goring for example).

Did people are God write these laws?

The bulk of the non-ceremonial laws relate to social justice, they just went about it in a different way from what we would (and who is to say that our way is better - racism in the US still exists despite the Civil Rights movement and the current popular solution - Critical Race Theory - just transfers the racism to someone else so I don't see it disappearing any time soon).

Yes but we both agree that racism is wrong. Do we both agree that owning others as property is wrong as well?

The Bible uses the term 'Shalom'. Most people think it just means peace, but it is far more encompassing than that. A better term might be 'wellbeing', but also 'restoring the Status Quo'. When you look at the OT laws through that lens there is a clear tendency towards restoration - including restoration of freedom in this case - nobody should feel short-changed or resentful, because that leads to escalation (and we have seen that in the race riots of a year ago, riots that didn't solve anything because they just continued the resentment).

In conclusion: Don't assume that a law dealing with the death of a servant/slave somehow means it was normal behaviour. Clearly it isn't (if the slave could love his master or the fact that he was answerable for the death). Whatever we think about slavery now doesn't change what they thought then. The laws in general indicate that it was not a good thing for Israelites to go into slavery, but rather that it was a necessity to ensure survival. There are probably plenty of people in the third world who would indenture themselves for 7 years if they were guaranteed food and shelter for themselves and their families.

Yet, indentured servitude is not the entire teaching of slavery in the bible. You have not addressed the non Hebrew and female slave rules. Should people have the ability to say if they want to be a slave or not?

 

[cvanwey]

it looks as though you are reading modern thinking back into a different cultural milieu.

I see two issues with this response:

1. Such a given response above suggests that God's morals change?
2. Jesus does not later revoke such prior allowances. Hence, regardless of if you ascribe to dispensationalism vs. covenant based theology, the allowances looks to be forever.

Hence, why does it matter about 'modern thinking'?

The beating of slaves existed throughout history as a fact of life.

According to this rationale, lying, cheating, trespassing, and all deemed 'moral' actions, should then also be sanctioned or okay'd by God "We did/do it anyways, therefore, God is a-okay with it"

God has the power to mention His contempt for any act(s). Why not slavery???

Unlike American slavery, there is no indication that slaves were just beaten for no good reason (and every reason to suppose that in the case of Hebrew servants that such arbitrary beatings would not have been looked on favourably by the rest of society).

The Bible gives a general or specific list as to what a deemed slave/servant [can and cannot] be beaten for?.?.?

Further, I'm not sure why you want to single out the "American slave trade"? According to the Bible, this can also be justified. You may want to read what the Bible actually says

In other words the servant had to have done something sufficiently wrong to justify such a beating and a beating that caused a servant to be bedridden is going to cost the master in lost service as well as food and shelter, so is not economically sensible.

(repeat) The Bible gives a general or specific list as to what a deemed slave/servant [can and cannot] be beaten for?.?.?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What offences have new testament Christians committed to be continually beat over the head with the old testament by unbelievers?

They believe that an all good God inspired the OT and wrote the rules for slavery, endorsed the killing of children, flooded the world etc.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

So you cannot show me in the text where it says Hebrew slaves are slaves by choice or that they can leave anytime by paying a debt. Do you need another history book to clarify what the perfect word of God says?

To answer the last question first. Not really, but you clearly do. I don't have a problem with the history or the state of slavery in ancient Israel, but so far your response do seem to be based on a lack of knowledge of ancient Near Eastern practices and an unwillingness to even put yourself I the shoes of those who lived in those times. You impost 21st century thinking on to people who lived in a wholly different way (whether it was a good way or not).

Case in point your insistence in having specific words regarding how an Israelite became an indentured servant (slave) to another Israelite. I said this is common sense, certainly given the things I've already read and I got the impression that you were much further ahead in the Torah's take on slavery.

We can do it in more detail if you like, but I don't think that it will make much difference to your view because you have no concept of how a person may have gotten into that situation.

Try this: Imagine you are an Israelite at the time of the Judges (i.e. before a King in Israel). You wake up one morning and you are now a slave to another Israelite. Yesterday you were free, today you are not. How did you get into that situation?

I'd be interested in what options you come up with.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

To answer the last question first. Not really, but you clearly do. I don't have a problem with the history or the state of slavery in ancient Israel, but so far your response do seem to be based on a lack of knowledge of ancient Near Eastern practices and an unwillingness to even put yourself I the shoes of those who lived in those times. You impost 21st century thinking on to people who lived in a wholly different way (whether it was a good way or not).

So slavery is moral at that time because it was common? I think it is immoral to own others as property in any situation or context. What justification do you have to enslave others against their will? Even if being a slave would be better than not the person should have the final say if they want to be a slave.

Case in point your insistence in having specific words regarding how an Israelite became an indentured servant (slave) to another Israelite. I said this is common sense, certainly given the things I've already read and I got the impression that you were much further ahead in the Torah's take on slavery.

We can do it in more detail if you like, but I don't think that it will make much difference to your view because you have no concept of how a person may have gotten into that situation.

You are the one inserting things into the text that it does not say without giving any sources for your claims. Like the beating your slaves was actually showing that you should not do it when the words actually say you can beat them. Again if you have sinful man made sources for your claims to justify what a perfect god inspired I would like to see them.

Try this: Imagine you are an Israelite at the time of the Judges (i.e. before a King in Israel). You wake up one morning and you are now a slave to another Israelite. Yesterday you were free, today you are not. How did you get into that situation?

I don't know. Sounds like you had no say in it though if you fall asleep free and wake up a slave..

I'd be interested in what options you come up with.

Options for what?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Further, I'm not sure why you want to single out the "American slave trade"? According to the Bible, this can also be justified. You may want to read what the Bible actually says

I'm still covering the early passages of the law at the moment, so I won't answer your other questions now, but hopefully will get to them at some point.

But this one intrigues me. The American Slave Trade I only have knowledge of by reading or watching things like Roots, so I might be mistaken, but I know of no case of American slaves being allowed to go free in the seventh year of their servitude (Ex 21:2). I know of no case of American slaves choosing to go back into slavery having gained their freedom because they loved their master so much (Ex 21:5). The American female slaves weren't forbidden to be sold on to foreign masters (Ex 21:8); I don't know of any slave owners who were sentenced to death for murdering their slave (Ex 21:12, 20); I don't know of any of the slave traders or owners of such displaced foreigners being sentenced to death (Ex 21:16); I don't know of any American slaves set free after they have been maimed by master (Ex: 21-26-27).

So many differences and we have only skimmed the surface of what the Bible actually says.

One only needs a slight knowledge of history (and maybe a viewing of Ben Our) to see that American slavery doesn't even resemble slavery in the Roman Empire and I believe around 85% of the population were slaves there so we have plenty of examples.

American slavery (and that should possibly be extended to European slavery, though there seems to be lot less of that) cannot be justified based on the Bible in any way unless one cuts out the parts about the dignity of each human being, i.e. most of the New Testament.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Like the beating your slaves was actually showing that you should not do it when the words actually say you can beat them.

Actually the words don't say you can beat them, it just tells you what happens if you do. It is not permission to just beat a person arbitrarily and since the verses you quote in the OP allow the slave to go free if they have been maimed.

In the OP you make the point that such maiming only covers eye and tooth, but that assumes that this is legalistically applied, rather than being presented as examples. You ought to credit the Judges with a little more intelligence than that (I know I do).

None of the laws as strictly interpreted with blinked vision - read the Talmud where the Rabbis discuss many of the laws and even Jesus own interpretations ("You say..., but I say...").

The way you seem to be applying it, it would be perfectly legal for a master to cut off his slaves feet and hands and ears and there would be no consequences to that action.

It is quite clear that any form of violence against the servant could potentially result in the master losing his own life, and at the very least the slave going free - all debt paid.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I don't know. Sounds like you had no say in it though if you fall asleep free and wake up a slave..

Why do you think that? I'm just pointing out the change in circumstances from one day to another and asking you to account for it. You don't even have to slept, if it worries you that much.

How is it that yesterday you, an Israelite, was free, whereas today you serve an Israelite master as a slave?

You seem so adamant that this was not a personal choice, so there must be some other reason this has happened, I want to know what it is.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Actually the words don't say you can beat them, it just tells you what happens if you do. It is not permission to just beat a person arbitrarily and since the verses you quote in the OP allow the slave to go free if they have been maimed.

The text gives instruction on how to beat a slave without consequences. It says "When you beat a slave..." This indicates they will. It never says to not beat your slave.

In the OP you make the point that such maiming only covers eye and tooth, but that assumes that this is legalistically applied, rather than being presented as examples. You ought to credit the Judges with a little more intelligence than that (I know I do).

None of the laws as strictly interpreted with blinked vision - read the Talmud where the Rabbis discuss many of the laws and even Jesus own interpretations ("You say..., but I say...").

The way you seem to be applying it, it would be perfectly legal for a master to cut off his slaves feet and hands and ears and there would be no consequences to that action.

It is quite clear that any form of violence against the servant could potentially result in the master losing his own life, and at the very least the slave going free - all debt paid.

Yet, it never says to not beat a slave. It also does say how to commit violence against a slave without losing your life. That is the point of the passage. It instructs how to beat your slave properly so the master has no consequences.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why do you think that? I'm just pointing out the change in circumstances from one day to another and asking you to account for it. You don't even have to slept, if it worries you that much.

How is it that yesterday you, an Israelite, was free, whereas today you serve an Israelite master as a slave?

You seem so adamant that this was not a personal choice, so there must be some other reason this has happened, I want to know what it is.

Ok, now I understand. If they are a Hebrew male they can voluntarily commit to being a slave to pay a debt. I agree to that. But if you are a hebrew female for example your father could sell you into slavery for a price, against your will Ex21:1, if you are a non Hebrew you can be bought as a slave against your will. Lev 25:44-46.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They believe that an all good God inspired the OT and wrote the rules for slavery, endorsed the killing of children, flooded the world etc.

God recognizes when a people are irredeemably corrupt.

My guess is that God did it to ensure the survival of mankind. And there's more bloodshed to come by the hand of God to ensure the survival of mankind.

Matthew 24:22
"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

My guess is that God did it to ensure the survival of mankind. And there's more bloodshed to come by the hand of God to ensure the survival of mankind.

Matthew 24:22
"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

So he could not think of another way? God could have just stopped them from conceiving except for Noah's family after everyone else died off. Or just poofed everyone into non existence. These two ways would be a better moral action than a global flood. I bet God can think of even more moral options than what I can think of.

 

[cvanwey]

The American Slave Trade I only have knowledge of by reading or watching things like Roots, so I might be mistaken, but I know of no case of American slaves being allowed to go free in the seventh year of their servitude (Ex 21:2).

This passage was exclusive to the Jews. Why does God provide special instructions for one sect of people, based upon attributes humans cannot even control? Seems God favors some over others.

I know of no case of American slaves choosing to go back into slavery having gained their freedom because they loved their master so much (Ex 21:5).

Again, this law was written exclusively for the Jews alone. All others were not to ever go free.

The American female slaves weren't forbidden to be sold on to foreign masters (Ex 21:8);

I noticed you skipped passage 7?

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."

Why is that?

Women, whom were still living with their fathers, because they were not yet married, had virtually no rights of their own. Heck, they virtually had no rights either way, (married or single). They might as well have been "slaves" regardless. Consent was issued by a male, whether it be the father, the husband, or other.

I don't know of any slave owners who were sentenced to death for murdering their slave (Ex 21:12, 20);

Passage 12 is not necessarily speaking about "slaves" exclusively. If you read the first few commands, these rules are speaking about various acts, outside "slavery" (Verses 12-19 to be exact):

Personal Injuries
"12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death. 15 “Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death." etc etc...

The Bible then circles back to "slavery" in Verses 20-21"

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."

The above passage states that you may beat your slave(s), as long as they do not die. The passages also reassure the reader that the slave is the master's property.

I don't know of any of the slave traders or owners of such displaced foreigners being sentenced to death (Ex 21:16);

As stated above, Verse 16 is not speaking about slaves Verses 12-19 are speaking about other situations. It's not until you get to Verse 20 that the Bible singles out the "slaves".

I don't know of any American slaves set free after they have been maimed by master (Ex: 21-26-27).

I guess this is why masters would beat their slaves from the back side. This way, you cannot knock out their eyes or teeth. Furthermore, a blind slave is likely a worthless slave.

So many differences and we have only skimmed the surface of what the Bible actually says.

Sure there are "differences", but not likely how you had hoped.

One only needs a slight knowledge of history (and maybe a viewing of Ben Our) to see that American slavery doesn't even resemble slavery in the Roman Empire and I believe around 85% of the population were slaves there so we have plenty of examples.

If you are born into slavery, you are a slave for life (ala Scripture). If you are not an Israelite, you are a slave for life (again in Scripture). If you are a female, you are also slave for life. According to Chapter and Verse, a master is able to purchase slaves from a foreign land, provided they were born into slavery.

I'd imagine it was good business practices to bread your slaves. This way, these offspring are yours for life. You also do not have to buy them. And to boot, this method is Bible approved.

American slavery (and that should possibly be extended to European slavery, though there seems to be lot less of that) cannot be justified based on the Bible in any way unless one cuts out the parts about the dignity of each human being, i.e. most of the New Testament.

Yes it is "justified". And later, when Jesus comes along, He seems not too anxious to mention His abolition for such practices.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So he could not think of another way? God could have just stopped them from conceiving except for Noah's family after everyone else died off. Or just poofed everyone into non existence. These two ways would be a better moral action than a global flood. I bet God can think of even more moral options than what I can think of.

That's how God chose to purify the earth. There are worse deaths than drowning.

What does it feel like to drown? - Quora

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Again, this law was written exclusively for the Jews alone. All others were not to ever go free.

Precisely, so that is the reason why this cannot be used to justify the American slave trade!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's how God chose to purify the earth. There are worse deaths than drowning.

What does it feel like to drown? - Quora

Sure like being killed with a sword ordered by god, or being killed by fire from the sky, or being killed by a bear.

Just because it is not the worst death does not mean it is not immoral. He could have just poofed them out of existence.