Slavery, a Guide

[cvanwey]

@Silly Uncle Wayne , were you going to address post #506? Or, should I now consider your complete lack in response to my counter points a complete concession?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

@Silly Uncle Wayne , were you going to address post #506? Or, should I now consider your complete lack in response to my counter points a complete concession?

No I'm going to get around to it some time soon. I've read the entire Torah, made a note of ALL passages relating to slavery, as well as other passages that help us to understand the law. I've now just got to collate that into something useful and add in the Christian response, which will necessarily be different.

 

[HitchSlap]

Here's an oldie but goodie...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don't know about you, but I don't like the term 'Human Resources' because I don't like being referred to as a resource. Yet every company that I work for uses this term now (rather than the much nicer 'Personnel').

The term 'property' in the Bible when used in conjunction with people (which is not very often, I only found one reference) is not much different from 'resource'.

One is enough right? My main objection here is treating people as property.

Unlike other property, servants could choose their state, even those sold into servitude or whom volunteered or were compelled to do so. Changing on a whim was not easy, but it could be done and this is the only difference I can seen with modern day practices of resourcing where changing is a whole lot easier.

I don't see how the slaves in Lev 25 44-46 and the Hebrew female and child slaves could change their state. No where does the Bible does it say they can leave at ay point on their own. The only out is for male Hebrew slaves at Jubilee.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It is in some translations, e.g. NET.

The problem is not necessarily one of translation though, but one of preconceived notions. Elsewhere you say you are not thinking of American slavery when the term is being used, so it should be perfectly possible to use the term 'slave' and to understand it in its context as a person who chooses to be where they are for a time in order to pay off debts.

I have agreed with you that this type of slavery existed in the bible. But you refuse to acknowledge slaves in Lev 25:44-46 were not debt slaves. Nor were women sold into slavery by their fathers etc.

It is interesting that you accepted my explanation of the use of the term 'servant' rather than slave, but not doxatotheo's.

I accept the term servant, what we were arguing about was the term inheritance. doxatotheo's says it should be translated as assign when it clearly means inherited.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

One is enough right? My main objection here is treating people as property.

I agree, but this was a different time with different expectations. Elsewhere I point out the alternatives: starvation, deprivation, death. We might argue that this IS wrong, but it is more difficult to argue that it WAS wrong.

So far it seems to come down to a matte of perspective. You don't like the idea of treating people as property and I don't like the idea of people homeless and starving. The Israelite law guarantees no one need starve, or not have roof over their head and it also ensures that they can become free at a later date. And not just free, they were expected to be set up with sufficient resources to get a start in life and every 50 years, they would be guaranteed to inherit a piece of land (how much depends on how many relatives they had to share that land with).

I don't see how the slaves in Lev 25 44-46 and the Hebrew female and child slaves could change their state. No where does the Bible does it say they can leave at ay point on their own. The only out is for male Hebrew slaves at Jubilee.

There appears to be 3 classes of servant/slave in the Israelite laws. The Hebrew servant could not be held as a slave for more than 6 years. They could choose to continue for another 6 years or even for life. That applies to both males and females (read the similar passages in Deuteronomy where it explicitly includes females, I guess for the pedants among the Hebrews). Additionally every year of Jubilee, each family's land would revert back to the family, regardless of their circumstance (females were included in this if there were no male heirs, but male heirs were expected to look after their sisters).

Note that the the freedom during the Sabbath year was guaranteed. They could leave before that if they, or a member of their family, paid the debt (what the owner had forked out to get them to work for him/her).

A child brought up as the son/daughter of a slave would be entitled to go free when they became an adult under the same rules (this seems to be approximately age 13). I suspect that in most cases they would probably stay on to the next sabbath year, since they could learn a trade and leave with their family along with sufficient support from their master, but that is not explicitly stated anywhere.

They could also escape and claim sanctuary and they would not be sent back - of course they would have no money, no start up and they might find it difficult to survive, forcing themselves to go back into indentured servitude in order to survive.

Also they could claim freedom if they had been abused to the point of being disabled, and

The second class of people are called 'resident foreigners' in the NET, the meaning of the word suggests that it applies to non-Hebrew believers in God. The term is a bit ambiguous, but the commentaries/Lexicon I looked at all stated that these were foreign converts to YHWH (not Judaism, which is based on two of the 12 tribes). These were to be treated as one of their own in all instances, except the inheritance of land in the Jubilee (which was for the 12 tribes).

The third class of people were foreign slaves - these are either bought from foreign visitors or captured as part of the Canaanite conquests). There are no specific rules allowing this type of slave freedom anywhere, but they were free to convert to worship of YHWH, meaning that they became Resident Foreigners and as such would then be freed at the Sabbath year as above.

So in all cases freedom could be obtained with some hard work and maybe some sacrifices.

It should be noted in this, that while there are three classes of servant/slave, there is only one class of Master and the rules applied to the master regardless of the type of slave - so murder was murder regardless of the class of servant. Masters could not sell on their slaves (this is a little unclear, but it appears to indicate that they weren't to sell on to owners in other nations - so they could buy, but not sell to foreigners and if the person they were buying was Hebrew, then they were compelled to buy). Non Hebrew Masters in the land would also be subject to the same laws of the land.

The only issue that I am not totally clear on is the instance where a man marries while a slave and the master doesn't have to release the wife/children. This seems odd given that elsewhere it indicates that women are allowed to gain freedom at the sabbath also. What it suggests is what I have already said - that this is some form of protection that prevents a woman who had an arranged marriage from being compelled to stay with a bad husband/servant.

The man could then stick around for another 7 years to gain the right to decide his wife's fate himself, or agree to permanent servant situation (at least until Jubilee).

We can only speculate here as to the reasons, but if the servant thought he was being hard done by he could go to an impartial Judge and get a ruling (though it might not go in his favour).

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I have agreed with you that this type of slavery existed in the bible. But you refuse to acknowledge slaves in Lev 25:44-46 were not debt slaves. Nor were women sold into slavery by their fathers etc.

I accept the term servant, what we were arguing about was the term inheritance. doxatotheo's says it should be translated as assign when it clearly means inherited.

Fair enough. I've mentioned above my answers.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Did you quote an appeal to authority fallacy than literally did it that's hilarious. and the appeal to authority isn't only based on the person in discussion you can also quote people that are high in that field and use it as arguments in discussion.

How did I use it? And Yes, like I said it is not a fallacy if the person is an actual expert as I stated in my post.

Interesting your views on them being owned as property is based upon modernize views on slavery, I am pretty sure the servitude they are in is the same as not being Emancipated as children so basically like being controlled by parents and can't leave because you aren't obligated too.

No. We cannot beat our children or bequeath them to other children or sell them as property etc.

You keep making biblical slavery seem relevant to 1800s one i refuted that 2 threads ago.

No I have not. You are making it about that. The bible says that people can be property, be bought and sold as property, can be bequeathed to children, can be beat etc. That has nothing to do with 1800's US slavery and is morally wrong.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I agree, but this was a different time with different expectations. Elsewhere I point out the alternatives: starvation, deprivation, death. We might argue that this IS wrong, but it is more difficult to argue that it WAS wrong.

The problem is that the people had no choice. Also, why would not God come up with a better way to keep them from starving? Surely he could have just provided them food with his powers. Why would he make them into slaves to feed them? If He did that is an immoral act in my opinion.

So in all cases freedom could be obtained with some hard work and maybe some sacrifices.

Not so, see Lev 25:44-46, but even if this was the case why would a good god have them go through all of this to be free if that is what he wanted and not just tell them to knock it off and don't make slaves/property of each other.

 

[dóxatotheó]

The bible says that people can be property, be bought and sold as property

i already responded to this you just reject my response.

We cannot beat our children or bequeath them to other children or sell them as property etc.

i already responded to the verse

How did I use it? And Yes, like I said it is not a fallacy if the person is an actual expert as I stated in my post.

the crazy thing is you making semantics seem only legitimate to certain scholarship rather you like it or not i used linguistics you just dont wanna accept my pov because it refutes yours
but im done with this its seem you aint tryna find truth but rather hols to polemics

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The problem is that the people had no choice. Also, why would not God come up with a better way to keep them from starving? Surely he could have just provided them food with his powers. Why would he make them into slaves to feed them? If He did that is an immoral act in my opinion.

They had a choice. I repeat, they had a choice. Just in case you didn't get that I will say it again: THEY HAD A CHOICE.

I've pointe this out on numerous occasions - the only time they didn't have a choice was when they initially became slaves (and in some cases they had that choice as well). I tried to get you to imagine the situation where you had become a slave overnight and how that might have occurred. I thought you had understood, but it seems not. So here are the ways a person could become a slave:

- Capture in war is probably the most common reason in any ancient society. Israel was no different (Dt 20).
- Bought from a foreign nation (Lev 25:44) or resident foreigner (Lev 25:45)
- A thief, unable to repay the value of the theft plus the prescribed punishment (1/5th value as I recall, Ex 22:3)
- Women sold by parents (generally it would seem either as wife/wet nurse/surrogate/servant - these roles all seem to have been used at some point, though it is not clear the precise reasons for selling on - probably could not find a husband for some reason). (Ex 21:7)
- To clear debt (this one is not stated but given theft involved being indentured, it seems likely they would be allowed to choose service rather than rely on charity/starvation, provided both parties agreed - see Lev 25:39-40. It is unclear what is meant by 'brother' in this sense - it normally referred to close relatives - i.e. a common recent ancestor, probably the same tribe, though probably not every Israelite).
- To continue service that had previously been in place (at every Sabbath Year they would get their freedom, but not necessarily have anywhere to go - a person might put themselves back into service as the better alternative)
- To make service for life (Dt 15:16-17)

All servants had some entitlements and it is clear that all the laws that applied to slaves and their masters applied regardless of where the slave or master came from, as long as they were in the land. The only exceptions was the rule of land reclamation as dictated in Leviticus - since they were not descended from the 12 tribes, they had no inheritance.

All except foreign unbelievers had exactly the same rights, so having been indentured one day they could claim freedom in any of the following ways:
- Wait until the Sabbath Year (Dt 15:12-13), where freedom is also accompanied by the means of survival for a reasonable amount of time.
- Pay the debt/value to compensate the master (Lev 25:39). Note this is implicit also in Ex 21:2 that if he could pay off the remainder of his term he could go free. The master is not obligate to provide him with resources to set himself up, because he has defaulted on the contract and left before the Sabbath (see Dt 15:13)
- Escape (Dt 23:15-16) - this is legally allowed as part of the law. Slaves could not be compelled to return even if their master was then out of pocket. Note Judges might rule against them in cases were some form of debt need to be repaid - e.g. in the case of a Thief, however in such cases a new master would be expected to be found to take on the debt and ensure that the original recipient was not out of pocket (this isn't explicitly stated anywhere, but the purpose of Judges was to rule impartially and ensure that society functioned correctly and fairly). It should be noted that this was likely a rare circumstance as the other rules indicate that the servant should be treated with dignity while repaying their debt to society/their master.
- wounded by their master (Ex 21:26-27, note only pedants would think that this literally only applies to an eye or a tooth, Judges would be looking at any form of wound that causes disability, though probably not recoverable wounds (Ex 21:20)
- Jubilee (lots of references this in Leviticus - it as kind of Mega Sabbath Year where everything got reset - even life slaves would be freed to return to the land of their ancestors). They could of course choose not to and continue their service.

Foreign believers were to be included in all of the above laws (19:34, this covers everything about the law, except since they would have no land to inherit, Jubilee was less important to them).

To be a foreign believer, you needed only to be foreign and a believer (the NET uses the term 'Foreign Resident' which I guess is more literal, though its meaning implies a worshipper of YHWH).

Women were mostly covered by the same laws as the men (Dt 15), but there appear to be extra laws to ensure that they and children were not put into difficult situations. They would probably have had more trouble choosing to leave before a Sabbath because they were less likely to be able to obtain sufficient funds.

This means that even the slaves who were purchased or captured could become foreign residents. It would seem this would need judgement, to prevent cheaters, but once that had been accepted they were free to go under the same rulings as for Hebrews above.

So again, I say servants or slaves, they all had choices. There seem to be a few exceptions but they seem to be specific cases, and it is not always clear why they are exceptions. if they did not like the options they had, they could appeal to Judges for impartial judgement (Dt 16:18)

Not so, see Lev 25:44-46, but even if this was the case why would a good god have them go through all of this to be free if that is what he wanted and not just tell them to knock it off and don't make slaves/property of each other.

He doesn't tell them to make slaves/property of each other. He just provides rules for when they do.

A good god is also a loving father who does his best to provide for his children until they come of age and must go their own way... and in going their own way things might go wrong. it might be no fault of their own, it might be foreign invasion, it might be kidnap, it might be total incompetence, it might be the consequences of someone else's incompetence. The reasons for this could be any number... but they are irrelevant because God has demanded that there is a way out for everyone regardless of the reasons for becoming a slave/indentured. And the way provided also ensures that there are no shirkers and layabouts, but everyone has to work for their living - even the masters.

I know you object to the whole 'people as property' thing, but since a master could not be sentenced to death for totally destroying his house or killing his donkey, but he could for killing his servant then it is clear that the 'property' that was a person had some further value over and above other property.

If this is an issue stop thinking of them this way, and think of them as repaying a debt.

I've already made the point that these laws for petty crime and debt are far more humane than most of our laws who would imprison a criminal and rely on an insurance company to compensate any loss. Look up restorative justice - it has a far smaller repeat offender rate than imprisonment.

Remember I'm not trying to point out that slavery or people as property is good today, on the contrary, I don't think that at all - we have other means today (though not necessarily better). What I am trying to achieve here is to understand why the system imposed by the Hebrew law was actually very good for the times in which it was implemented and a guide, even today, about restoration and reparation, both of which are absent for the most part in modern law.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

i already responded to this you just reject my response.

And I have given reasons why I do not accept your response.

i already responded to the verse

And I responded to that.

the crazy thing is you making semantics seem only legitimate to certain scholarship rather you like it or not i used linguistics you just dont wanna accept my pov because it refutes yours

I gave you my reason why I don't accept your pov. I just did not reject them because I did not like them.

but im done with this its seem you aint tryna find truth but rather hols to polemics

Oh ok. All I have done is give you reasons why I disagree with you and you just accuse me of not trying to find truth. Whatever. The reason I no longer believe is because all I wanted was to find the truth. You are free to stop the conversation at any time but you are not free to accuse me of things you cannot possibly know.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

- God seems to favor one race of people. Which is a trait humans have absolutely no control over.

Very true, he favoured the descendants of Abraham and put them under a covenant and encouraged them to be an example to the other nations - something they weren't very good at.

Nowadays all can become descendants of Abraham via adoption as defined by Christianity. So it is now a trait that humans have control over.

- The slave master gets to keep slave bread offspring.

I assume that 'bread' is some kind of typo, else this doesn't make much sense.

The owner gets to keep all children of slaves until they come of age by choice until their parents are freed at the Sabbath. if their parents are not freed at the Sabbath, it is because they are foreign slaves who do not believe in YHWH. The moment they validly profess belief in YHWH they become subject to sabbath rules (which includes children).

- God seems to write laws which humans are already doing, rather than expressing His disagreement for such practices. Which must mean God is okay with 'slavery' in general.

I think that is a somewhat cynical reading of the situation. God is OK with 'slavery' in Israel where rules are in place to ensure freedom. It is clear that he is not OK with slavery in other nations, as he compels Israelites to buy back Hebrew slaves from other nations.

As for writing laws that other humans are already doing, it is true - but then you look at the laws being written and what they are saying and you can see that he is doing something radically different. The laws of Israel are about repairing of relationships and property. The intent is clearly to ensure that no Israelite is permanently landless, and no believer (Hebrew or otherwise) is permanently enslaved. The laws cover various definitive 'do not do' something as well as laws that are of the form, 'if you do, then you will be punished'

- The rules of 'slavery' differ between men and women.

Yes, but I don't know if you have spotted this yet, but men and women are different, even today. In a culture where the differences extended to what was expected of them, then it is likely that the laws will be different for them.

- The Bible condones the beating of your slaves, with virtually no regards to what is and is not an acceptable 'justification' for doing so.

If you mean accept that it happens, then yes. If you mean approve or sanction it happening, then definitely not.

You are selectively looking at the laws and seeing only what they say, not what they imply. So if you stick to just the laws about masters beating slaves, then you can justify slaves beating masters with no comeback. I.e. It is perfectly acceptable for slaves to attack, maim or kill their masters because there is no law forbidding it, or suggesting punishment.

If you, however extend your investigation of the laws, you will see that there are laws about hurting your neighbour and they appear almost in the same place as the laws relating to slaves/servants.

Since these laws relating to slaves are referring to Hebrew or God-fearing foreigners, they all come under the term 'neighbour' in Hebrew law (and that would be extended to everyone in Christian thinking, since everyone is our neighbour). In other words, it doesn't matter whether the slave attacks the master or the master attacks the slave, there is punishment to be meted out. Death in the case of murder, regardless of the status of the murderer. The difference comes in the outcome of loss of work - if the person unable to work is another person elsewhere, the attacker needs to pay for the loss of livelihood. If it is the slave, then the master is the one who is losing out on a worker and therefore has already suffered the loss. If it is the master, then the slave has to pay compensation to his master... meaning he is likely to have to remain a slave for longer than anticipated in order to pay off the debt... but he cannot stay longer than the sabbath when debts are cleared anyway so in other words, the master is the one who loses out in this circumstance.

- The entire topic of 'slavery' is quite vague, rendering justification for virtually any form of slavery practices.

I think you are right, but if you actually read the laws a lot of them are quite vague. They are not intended to be definitive, but rather examples and they had impartial Judges who were to put the laws into practice. You wouldn't need laws at all if everyone actually tried to get on with each other.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

They had a choice. I repeat, they had a choice. Just in case you didn't get that I will say it again: THEY HAD A CHOICE.

I've pointe this out on numerous occasions - the only time they didn't have a choice was when they initially became slaves (and in some cases they had that choice as well). I tried to get you to imagine the situation where you had become a slave overnight and how that might have occurred. I thought you had understood, but it seems not. So here are the ways a person could become a slave:

- Capture in war is probably the most common reason in any ancient society. Israel was no different (Dt 20).
- Bought from a foreign nation (Lev 25:44) or resident foreigner (Lev 25:45)
- A thief, unable to repay the value of the theft plus the prescribed punishment (1/5th value as I recall, Ex 22:3)
- Women sold by parents (generally it would seem either as wife/wet nurse/surrogate/servant - these roles all seem to have been used at some point, though it is not clear the precise reasons for selling on - probably could not find a husband for some reason). (Ex 21:7)
- To clear debt (this one is not stated but given theft involved being indentured, it seems likely they would be allowed to choose service rather than rely on charity/starvation, provided both parties agreed - see Lev 25:39-40. It is unclear what is meant by 'brother' in this sense - it normally referred to close relatives - i.e. a common recent ancestor, probably the same tribe, though probably not every Israelite).
- To continue service that had previously been in place (at every Sabbath Year they would get their freedom, but not necessarily have anywhere to go - a person might put themselves back into service as the better alternative)
- To make service for life (Dt 15:16-17)

All servants had some entitlements and it is clear that all the laws that applied to slaves and their masters applied regardless of where the slave or master came from, as long as they were in the land. The only exceptions was the rule of land reclamation as dictated in Leviticus - since they were not descended from the 12 tribes, they had no inheritance.

All except foreign unbelievers had exactly the same rights, so having been indentured one day they could claim freedom in any of the following ways:
- Wait until the Sabbath Year (Dt 15:12-13), where freedom is also accompanied by the means of survival for a reasonable amount of time.
- Pay the debt/value to compensate the master (Lev 25:39). Note this is implicit also in Ex 21:2 that if he could pay off the remainder of his term he could go free. The master is not obligate to provide him with resources to set himself up, because he has defaulted on the contract and left before the Sabbath (see Dt 15:13)
- Escape (Dt 23:15-16) - this is legally allowed as part of the law. Slaves could not be compelled to return even if their master was then out of pocket. Note Judges might rule against them in cases were some form of debt need to be repaid - e.g. in the case of a Thief, however in such cases a new master would be expected to be found to take on the debt and ensure that the original recipient was not out of pocket (this isn't explicitly stated anywhere, but the purpose of Judges was to rule impartially and ensure that society functioned correctly and fairly). It should be noted that this was likely a rare circumstance as the other rules indicate that the servant should be treated with dignity while repaying their debt to society/their master.
- wounded by their master (Ex 21:26-27, note only pedants would think that this literally only applies to an eye or a tooth, Judges would be looking at any form of wound that causes disability, though probably not recoverable wounds (Ex 21:20)
- Jubilee (lots of references this in Leviticus - it as kind of Mega Sabbath Year where everything got reset - even life slaves would be freed to return to the land of their ancestors). They could of course choose not to and continue their service.

Foreign believers were to be included in all of the above laws (19:34, this covers everything about the law, except since they would have no land to inherit, Jubilee was less important to them).

To be a foreign believer, you needed only to be foreign and a believer (the NET uses the term 'Foreign Resident' which I guess is more literal, though its meaning implies a worshipper of YHWH).

Women were mostly covered by the same laws as the men (Dt 15), but there appear to be extra laws to ensure that they and children were not put into difficult situations. They would probably have had more trouble choosing to leave before a Sabbath because they were less likely to be able to obtain sufficient funds.

This means that even the slaves who were purchased or captured could become foreign residents. It would seem this would need judgement, to prevent cheaters, but once that had been accepted they were free to go under the same rulings as for Hebrews above.

So again, I say servants or slaves, they all had choices. There seem to be a few exceptions but they seem to be specific cases, and it is not always clear why they are exceptions. if they did not like the options they had, they could appeal to Judges for impartial judgement (Dt 16:18)

The statement that they all had choices is false. Can you directly respond to these verses?

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. 45 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. 46 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.

He doesn't tell them to make slaves/property of each other. He just provides rules for when they do.

And the rules are immoral as I have pointed out. If God does think it is immoral to own slaves it is His responsibility to tell us it is immoral. What if we just set rules on how best to rape someone instead of telling people it is wrong?

A good god is also a loving father who does his best to provide for his children until they come of age and must go their own way... and in going their own way things might go wrong. it might be no fault of their own, it might be foreign invasion, it might be kidnap, it might be total incompetence, it might be the consequences of someone else's incompetence. The reasons for this could be any number... but they are irrelevant because God has demanded that there is a way out for everyone regardless of the reasons for becoming a slave/indentured. And the way provided also ensures that there are no shirkers and layabouts, but everyone has to work for their living - even the masters.

Yet God could realize His plan without making people slaves.

I know you object to the whole 'people as property' thing, but since a master could not be sentenced to death for totally destroying his house or killing his donkey, but he could for killing his servant then it is clear that the 'property' that was a person had some further value over and above other property.

Yet you can still beat them severely. Do you think that is moral?

If this is an issue stop thinking of them this way, and think of them as repaying a debt.

This is your problem. You just want to focus on the people paying a debt and not deal with the issue of people enslaved for life. Lev 25: 44-46. What debt are they paying off?

I've already made the point that these laws for petty crime and debt are far more humane than most of our laws who would imprison a criminal and rely on an insurance company to compensate any loss. Look up restorative justice - it has a far smaller repeat offender rate than imprisonment.

Remember I'm not trying to point out that slavery or people as property is good today, on the contrary, I don't think that at all - we have other means today (though not necessarily better). What I am trying to achieve here is to understand why the system imposed by the Hebrew law was actually very good for the times in which it was implemented and a guide, even today, about restoration and reparation, both of which are absent for the most part in modern law.

I think restorative justice has merit. This is not that. Until you deal with Lev 25:44-46 I don't know if we can make any headway here.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

As I look through your post 506 for the umpteenth time, I still get the impression that you missed the point I was trying to make with my list.

To put it another way, justification FOR slavery is and always was a minority view in Christianity, historically. The fact that someone tried to use Leviticus 25 alone to justify it should make the problem obvious, because the Bible is not made up of Leviticus 25 ALONE and you can only justify it by ignoring pretty much everything else. it is why the Slave Bible is missing 2/3rds of everybody else's Bible.

Essentially you can justify anything you want if you are willing to ignore anything that disagrees with you. Imagine trying to do science that way: 'I can prove there is only one planet in the solar system!' 'What about Mars, Uranus, etc.?' 'I'm not including them because they are irrelevant.'

it just doesn't work. You, as the minority view holder (and the American slave holders) need to be justifying your theology by using the WHOLE Bible, not just the bits that seem to support your viewpoint. I think that anyone who has half a brain could see that.

As an example of this, the verses you quote about the behaviour of slaves is completely missing the counterpoint verses that tell masters how to treat their slaves. Most definitely a case of cherry-picking I think.

However your original post (500?) wanted to see why Christians cannot justify the treatment of Black African slaves and that is where I am going next.

 

[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

OK, I intend to cover the American Slave Trade from beginning to end and then see what the Bible says about this. I'm going by 'popular' perception here and may actually be wrong about what was going on.

0) Preliminaries: At the heart of the covenant between the nation of Israel and YHWH is the Ten Commandments. Not wanting to go through all of those, lets start with the summary of these that was commonly known during the first century: "Love the Lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself" (Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:37-39 from Deuteronomy 6:5 & Leviticus 19:18).

'Love' used here and pretty much throughout the New Testament is Agape Love - i.e. an act, rather than an emotion. Israelites should love YHWH and loving him means not doing things that dishonour him or hurt him or his goals. I similar thing could be said of loving your neighbour - doing one's best to help and not hinder your neighbour.

'Neighbour' as Christians define it is anyone in need (cf, the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, which Jesus uses as an example to show that our neighbour is anyone who needs our love). By implication this use of neighbour would be how God originally intended it to be used. Note that this is not some kind of blindness, like letting a serial killer go free because you love them. If you love your neighbour - you love all of them and that means measures to prevent one 'neighbour' from hurting another. This can be seen in the Torah laws where murder is punishable by death.

Israel had a purpose (as did pretty much all the Canaanite tribes): to bless all of the world (Genesis 12:1-3 & note that those who reciprocated the blessing would be blessed and those who did not would be cursed). Now it is clear that oppressing someone isn't going to be much of blessing to them.

Summary: The heart of the Law, is applicable to both Israelite and Christian equally, is to love God and then to love other human beings (and any reading of the New Testament shows that this is extended beyond its original Jewish framework).

1) Capture/Kidnap of Africans to be sold as slaves: Mostly this was conducted by Africans against Africans, though apparently Europeans also engaged in such practices, such was the lucrative nature of the slave trade.

Where Africans were capturing and kidnapping other Africans, they were probably not Christian as Christianity had been big on the east Coast (e.g. Ethiopia), but it is not certain how far it spread across Africa at this time.

Torah allows for capture of slaves during war, but only if the place being besieged surrender peacefully (Dt 20:10-15). Apart from the Promised Land Israel should only have been warring in defence of their land, which is why they are to leave the the cities behind (though destroyed) and return home. None of their military victories except for Canaan were about gaining land.

Christians on the other hand perceive the Kingdom of God to be not of this world and therefore would not be conquering other lands (didn't stop them doing it sadly, e.g. Crusades).

The reality of the few instances of direct capture by Europeans suggests that their motivation was pure greed - fill out their ships with slaves to be traded.

Conclusion: The Bible doesn't prohibit this, though it does not encourage it except in defensive war, which this wasn't.

2) Purchase of Slaves: This was the most common method that Europeans used to gain slaves - exchanging "guns, ammunition, alcohol, Indigo died Indian textiles, and other factory-made goods." (Wikipedia) for slaves.

Personally I find this abhorrent, particularly as I know how the slaves were then treated, but the fact is that this practice is allowed in Torah - Leviticus 25:44. The Christian nations had stamped this out over a thousand years earlier leading to the rise of serfs rather than slaves, which may or may not have been just as badly managed (particularly from the 17th century onwards - e.g. French & Russian Revolutions).

I seem to recall that one of the Roman writers of the second century complained that Christians were buying slaves and setting them free. Whether all were set free is not clear, but the book of Philemon hints that Paul wanted Philemon to be freed to help in the ministry, though he is not compelled to do so. If slaves could do a better job of furthering the kingdom of God when they were free than when they remained in slavery it is possible that Christians would have done that.

Conclusion: This practise is allowed for in the Torah, and early Christians probably engaged in it before slavery was gradually phased out at the encouragement of Christians.

3) Transportation of Slaves: There is nothing in the bible about slaves being transported anywhere. However given that the most likely ways of obtaining slaves like this were from the surrounding nations, whether by capture or purchase, they would have been transported - possibly en masse if a city was captured. However the purpose of slaves was to work for their masters - something they couldn't do if dead. Both the Israelite Law and Christian Agape love would not accept the mistreatment of property.

The Slave Triangle transported human beings in an inhuman way. There is no getting around this. Watch a series like Roots or movies like Amistad and Amazing Grace as well as even a cursory research of the subject shows that the traders had absolutely no regard for the lives of those in their care. The loss of life was so bad that they would cram as many as possible like sardines on the ship and throw any dead or dying overboard. it is likely that the overcrowding was in fact a major reason for the sheer number of deaths.

On top of this there are cases where slavers threw all their living slaves overboard in order to claim on the insurance. Greed again trumping any kind of Christian love.

Women were often raped and when 'finished with' just thrown overboard. There is no justification for this in the Torah where rape is punishable by death and in Christianity where any kind of sexual deviancy is forbidden.

Conclusion: There can be no justification for the way that the slaves were treated on their journey across The Atlantic. There is no Biblical precedent in either New or Old Testament and had the slaves and slavers been Hebrews there would be grounds for multiple executions of traders (Ex 21:20, Lev 19:20, Lev 24:17; Lev 25:43)

4) Slavery on the Plantations: A large proportion of those who had ended up as slaves on the plantations became Christians. There are clear instances of plantation owners treating their slaves well and educating them and treating them like other workers. But there are plenty of instances where they were treated terribly, whether they were Christian or not.

Whippings and beatings appear to be routine. There may have been cases where some kind of punishment was justified, but the problem appears to be that such beatings occurred at the whim of the owner and with no kind of restitution for the victims as per the Torah (Ex 21:26, Dt 15:13). The New Testament expressly says that Masters should not threaten their slaves with no indication that this only applies to some elite group (Ephesians 6:9, also Colossians 4:1).

It does seem that murder was fairly common, although there were some prosecutions even early on in the colonies, though this seems to change. Hebrews wouldn't have treated any of their slaves in this way. Not just because murder was punishable by death, regardless of their status (e.g. Lev 24:17) but doing so meant that you had one less worker to work your fields, so it didn't make economic sense. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that plantation owners were mega rich and could just buy more slaves if they died. This kind of easy-come-easy-go attitude seems to have bled over into groups like the Ku-Klux-Klan. This method of treating people as property is neither endorsed nor encouraged anywhere in the Bible, with verses giving slaves any kind of value indicating that they had value to the master, not that they were 'owned'

While some owners did allow their slaves to gain freedom, the general impression given is that many did not, again contrary to Torah (Resident Foreigners were to be treated in the same as Hebrews, by extension then, Christian slaves should have been treated in the same way as Hebrew slaves - Leviticus 19:24). There is little or no indication of Sabbath Laws, nor of anyone Judging impartially in any situation.

Forced marriages were normal. There is precedent for this in Torah, though not in the way it actually seems to have been applied in many cases, though in Torah this would be considered 'arranged' and is likely to have been a much more amenable arrangement, particularly as many of the stronger slaves were treated like studs!

Rape was common also and clearly there is no precedent for this in Torah (see above section on the journey).

There is no indication anywhere that Sabbath freedom as depicted in the Torah was ever applied. Nor is there much indication that slaves earned money in order to gain their own freedom as was the situation in Jesus' time and to which Paul is referring in Ephesians/Colossians/Philemon. Some slaves gained freedom eventually by purchasing it, but again the trend seems to be against any kind of freedom from slavery.

Children of slaves were automatically slaves and put to work as soon as they were able - certainly not how Israelites would have treated their slave children, whether Hebrew or non-Hebrew. Nor does this seem to fit with Jesus's actions or words about the treatment of children (blessed).

Slaves were often prevented from being educated and a slave in the plantations who could read was a bad thing. Nevertheless slaves learned to read and the most common reading material available was the Bible, so it is not surprising that many turned to Christianity. It is such an embarrassment that African slaves were better at being Christ-like than white Europeans!

Conclusion: There is no precedent anywhere for rape or murder or torture and none for life-long slavery or preventing their eventual freedom. Nothing in the way that slaves were treated in America appears to have any basis is in the Bible and I suspect that if the so-called Christian owners were truthfully loving both God and their neighbour as Jesus tells them to, then many of them would have become horrified at their actions and the likely consequences for their eternal souls (consider John Newton as an example of someone who did eventually see the error of his ways).

Summary: Based on my limited research over the last couple of weeks, I would say that a case can be made for slavery in Christianity, but it would not bear resemblance to anything that we have seen above. Slaves would be captured in defensive wars (which one hopes would not be a common occurrence) or sold by non Christians to Christian Masters. Once they were slaves, the master was expected to look after his slaves and treat them fairly - in other words like they treated anyone else with the simple exception that they had been compelled to work for their master. There is no direct imperative as Christians to free slaves, unless they are applying Torah, in which case they should have a Sabbath year, but without that it wasn't necessary... but although the law wasn't considered binding for non-Jews (see Romans, Galatians), it was indicative and Christian masters should then always be thinking about training their slaves for self-sufficiency and letting them out into the world when they are ready - anything that would help further the kingdom of God. If the slave trade had occurred under Christian terms, it would have been a minor blip in history. Instead greedy profiteers from beginning to end turned something bad into something terrible. There is no justification whatsoever for the horrible actions of slave traders and slave owners.

The only thing that Torah can be used to support is the purchase of slaves from foreign nations, the rest is prohibited or punished or discouraged (which those in the Slave Triangle and Antebellum South seem to have conveniently ignored or removed from the Bibles they used).

So the American slave trade CANNOT be justified from the Bible. You should read it, ALL OF IT, and you would see that what happened in the 300 years of Atlantic slaving bears little or no resemblance to any form of slavery or servitude mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The statement that they all had choices is false. Can you directly respond to these verses?

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. 45 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. 46 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.

Hmm, not difficult really, particularly as I referred to this in my commentary. Imagine for a moment you fall into the water, whether you are pushed or accidentally tripped (Best Goon voice, "He's fallen in the water!"). You have no choice in that, it is true, but from that moment on you have choices about staying in the water - you can just get out, you can swim around, you can ask for help - but everything you do is a choice - even staying in the water forever.

Now that is a very simplistic analogy, which I put in just so I could quote the Goons, let's try another. You have been sold to a Hebrew master. After six months of work, your master starts a conversation with you:

Master: "You know I paid good money for you, but you have the opportunity to gain your freedom"
You: "I do? How?"
Master: "Worship the almighty God of the Israelites, then you will be subject to the laws we have for slavery. That means you go free at the next Sabbath Year, or earlier if you can pay back what I got for you"
You: "I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods and nothing you can say will change that mind"
Master: "Not even your freedom."
You: "How can I be free if I am forced to believe in a God I don't believe in."
Master: "Nobody is forcing you to do anything - it is your choice"
You: "I will not do it"

7 years later:

Master: "Well, you missed your last opportunity at freedom, the offer is always there for you to join us and come under our laws."
You: "Never, you are just using Pascal's wager on me!"
Master: "Who?"
You: "It doesn't matter, I'll never convert to something I don't believe is true."
Master: "Probably just as well then"
You: "I've been reading your law and I want to know why you don't beat me."
Master: "Why, do you deserve to be beaten? I see nothing wrong in your service, you are now making me lots of money and you have the opportunity to leave. What possible reason could I have to beat you."
You: "Your laws tell you to beat me."
Master: "No they don't!"
You: "It says, 'if a master beats his slave and..."
Master: "Hold on, it says "If", it is not a command to beat slaves nor is it any kind of encouragement or do you think that if I beat you and you lose a tooth or an eye you will gain your freedom?"
You: "Help, help. I'm being repressed!" [I couldn't resist the Monty Python reference]

Anyway the point is that the ONLY thing you have no choice about is becoming a slave in the first place. After that, under Hebrew law you had a choice ever day about your future, either a) remain a slave forever, or b) become a convert to YHWH and remain a slave until the next Sabbath when not only were you given your freedom, but enough goods to set yourself up to ensure your future.

Which do you choose? slavery for the rest of your life or freedom and abundance. The Lazy and the committed opt for the first, the opportunistic opt for the second.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

And the rules are immoral as I have pointed out. If God does think it is immoral to own slaves it is His responsibility to tell us it is immoral. What if we just set rules on how best to rape someone instead of telling people it is wrong?

What you think is irrelevant, clearly God didn't think it immoral to hold slaves, but he did think it immoral to mistreat them and he also ensure that they would be looked after forever in some way or another.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Yet you can still beat them severely. Do you think that is moral?

No, and neither does God. I've already pointed out the laws about attacking your neighbour. The law is there to provide punishment when you do this sort of thing - to ensure that the victim is not further victimised regardless of economic circumstance.

It makes it seem like you would be a terrible master - beating your servants just because you could.

Both Christian and Israelite would be looking at their servants as human beings with potential. Beatings would only occur if so justified as a deterrent from further transgressions or in self-defence.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

This is your problem. You just want to focus on the people paying a debt and not deal with the issue of people enslaved for life. Lev 25: 44-46. What debt are they paying off?

I think restorative justice has merit. This is not that. Until you deal with Lev 25:44-46 I don't know if we can make any headway here.

I have dealt with it. Numerous times - it is not the ONLY verse in the Torah, or even the Old Testament, on the subject. You could start by extending your reading one verse earlier in Lev 25:43 "You must not rule over them harshly, but you must fear your God."

Imagine dealing with the US laws on one subject by refusing to accept the whole law, just the bit that suits your need. You'd be laughed out of court! So why do it here? Why assume that Lev 25:44-46 defines everything you need to know about foreign slaves and ignore everything else that suggests otherwise?

This seems like confirmation bias at work.