Slavery, a Guide

[cvanwey]

Covered in 538 in detail. Some aspects of the Atlantic Slave Trade can be justified by using the Law, most cannot.

I already countered in post #559. The Bible can justifiably be used to support the trans Atl. slave trade.

Resident Foreigners were to be treated in the same way as Hebrew slaves (and it specifically makes the point that the Hebrews were once slaves in a foreign land).

Your assertion is patently false:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

You were also telling @Clizby WampusCat about the year of Jubilee. However, again, when you read the Verses in context, you see it says the following:

Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years.

So the absolute best a non-Hebrew slave can hope for, is that they might be released, prior to their deaths; if one of these (twice a century) special considerations takes place. Please remember, the average life span of humans was somewhere around Jesus' age at His death. I would further imagine that a non-Hebrew slave's lifespan was likely much less than the slave master's life -- due to drastically differing provided living conditions.

Also covered by 538. Since the slaves could read back verses that allowed them to escape,

Most/all slaves, especially during this time, were likely illiterate. Thus, there is really not much need to address your response below. Though I still could...

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Not forgotten you, but I'm suffering from drowsiness due to hayfever and not in the best thinking mode. I've taken on board what you have said and will get back to it when we get some rain and I don't suffer as much.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I found this one quite interesting, not least because I don't really understand what is going on, but also because the closest parallel law that deals with the same scenario in a non-slave woman (Dt 22:28-29) he doesn't die either and has to pay the father some money and marry the woman.

I don't like either law and maybe it is just us misunderstanding the situation. However it should be noted that in all cases of rape there is a punishment that the man has to pay, whether it is a life, a bride price or an offering to God. Not sure how I feel about that given I have strong feelings about rape.

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

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The first part is true, the second part is not (that was covered in one of your other points). The first part does sound like the Atlantic Slave trade. On the other hand, the Colonial slavers pretty much proclaimed that they were Christians (there may have been Jewish owners too, I have no idea). If they were Christian, then clearly there is a higher obligation on them as slave owners as evidenced in the New Testament letters of Paul (you'll know where to look as all atheists know the passages about slaves loving their masters - now just read on and see what masters had to do as well).

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

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Not at all. If that were the case there would be no need for references to punishments for failure to adhere to the laws.

The difference, however, is that these were people steeped in the culture of their time. They went to the temple every sabbath, they met with their neighbours and discussed the law, they were expected to contribute to discussions and every day they would be reminded that God had bought them out of slavery into something better.

Looking for loopholes is a sure sign that you don't think that God is watching. It is possible you might do something wrong subconsciously, but the law provides for that in two ways - a sacrifice for unknown sins (the scapegoat if memory serves) and Judges who would be impartial and would want to have a darn good reason why they might be breaking up a marriage and 'because I said so' is not a darn good reason. Bear in mind that a Judge HAD to be brought in to witness this event and the purpose of the judge is to ensure that justice prevails. They would not be a very good judge if they did not actually investigate the matter fully before ruling on the subject.

So do I think the regulations were abused? Yes I do.

Do I think the the regulations were regularly abused? No I don't, they would definitely have been the exception and once it was found out, the master's reputation would have been completely ruined and the servant and his wife and children could walk away free (and probably gain compensation if the judge so rules it).

Mere speculation.

 

[cvanwey]

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

He has done that more than once.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Do you not understand context? When the Bible is speaking about the topic of servants and/or slaves, the Bible seems to do a pretty decent job of distinguishing if it is speaking about your run-o-da-mill 'slave', verses a Hebrew servant. They are not to be treated the same. When the laws are written about slavery allowances, and it does not specify a Hebrew servant, it's implied to be about ALL the other slaves - (which do not go free after 7 years).

Case/point, all such Verses speak about how you are to treat the Israelites; whom are to be your servants: Dt. 15:12-15, Ex 21:2-6, Lv. 25:39-43.

However, if the Bible is not being careful to distinguish that they are an Israelite, then the Bible is speaking about all other 'slaves'. Such as: Ex 21:20-21, and Lv. 25:44-46.

The problem I have with your assessment is all other slaves. This is an assumption. For example Ex 21:20-21 simply uses the word for 'servant', there is no ethnicity specified... so this applies to all servants, not just foreign slaves.

There is a worse problem with Lev 25:44-46 in that all of the verse around it are about Hebrews or Resident Foreigners. Lev 25:44 begins, 'as for your male and female slaves...' in other words it is assuming that the reader is already familiar with what has gone before.

This specific phrase may be translation choice, the CSB doesn't include 'as for...' although the interlinear I looked at did. It could be there just to highlight that this is part of a wider passage (which is what I am suggesting).

Verse 47 begins 'If a resident foreigner..' then deals with hebrews as slaves to resident foreigners and redeeming them.

So verse 44-46 are in the midst of debt & slave regulations that deal with both Hebrew and foreign residents and how they are to be treated.

Even verse 46, 'as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly' is followed by reference to the resident foreigner (who is included in all the laws include sabbath - just not the Jubilee law of restoring land ownership.)

So in the midst of verses about laws on Hebrew/Foreign Resident servants are verses about buy slaves from foreign residents... in other words these are all about the Foreign Resident again.

I think even in the light of the rest of the passages in question, verse 44, 'you may buy... slaves from from the nations all around' probably refers to those who would be considered 'resident foreigners' also.

The only spanner in the works for this is 'You may enslave them perpetually'. Some commentators refer to the Jubilee references that come after to interpret 'perpetually' as 'until the next jubilee', but that doesn't quite make sense to me.

Despite that I hope you can see that the fates of non-Hebrews are tied up with the fates of anyone else who comes to live in the land and trying to separate out specific laws without reference to that which is around is liable to end with a whole different way of thinking.

 

[cvanwey]

The problem I have with your assessment is all other slaves. This is an assumption. For example Ex 21:20-21 simply uses the word for 'servant', there is no ethnicity specified... so this applies to all servants, not just foreign slaves.

There is a worse problem with Lev 25:44-46 in that all of the verse around it are about Hebrews or Resident Foreigners. Lev 25:44 begins, 'as for your male and female slaves...' in other words it is assuming that the reader is already familiar with what has gone before.

This specific phrase may be translation choice, the CSB doesn't include 'as for...' although the interlinear I looked at did. It could be there just to highlight that this is part of a wider passage (which is what I am suggesting).

Verse 47 begins 'If a resident foreigner..' then deals with hebrews as slaves to resident foreigners and redeeming them.

So verse 44-46 are in the midst of debt & slave regulations that deal with both Hebrew and foreign residents and how they are to be treated.

Even verse 46, 'as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly' is followed by reference to the resident foreigner (who is included in all the laws include sabbath - just not the Jubilee law of restoring land ownership.)

So in the midst of verses about laws on Hebrew/Foreign Resident servants are verses about buy slaves from foreign residents... in other words these are all about the Foreign Resident again.

I think even in the light of the rest of the passages in question, verse 44, 'you may buy... slaves from from the nations all around' probably refers to those who would be considered 'resident foreigners' also.

The only spanner in the works for this is 'You may enslave them perpetually'. Some commentators refer to the Jubilee references that come after to interpret 'perpetually' as 'until the next jubilee', but that doesn't quite make sense to me.

Despite that I hope you can see that the fates of non-Hebrews are tied up with the fates of anyone else who comes to live in the land and trying to separate out specific laws without reference to that which is around is liable to end with a whole different way of thinking.

I thought I had already proved otherwise? Are you really this 'daft'?

A) The Bible instructs that [volunteer Hebrew servants] are to be released after 7 years.
B) The Bible instructs that [slaves] are to remain in the master's possession for life.

You cannot instruct both a (7 year release clause), while also instructing a (for life clause). This would be a direct contradiction. Thus, we must figure out who falls under category A) and who falls under category B).

When you read the Verses in context, the Bible looks to actually do a pretty good job in distinguishing the Hebrew servants, from the rest. At this point, I'm growing tired of providing specific Verses. You claim to have read them all. When I do point out direct indicators, you do not seem to grasp or follow.

I can only assume that you are either a). hindered by a cognitive dissonance, b). do not fully understand context, or are c). playing games.

The Bible's instructions look to be as follows...

God is a-okay with telling His readers that a slave master can keep certain 'slaves', as property, for life.

And please, do not again try and attempt to rationalize the word 'property'; like you did with @Clizby WampusCat

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I thought I had already proved otherwise? Are you really this 'daft'?

A) The Bible instructs that [volunteer Hebrew servants] are to be released after 7 years.
B) The Bible instructs that [slaves] are to remain in the master's possession for life.

You cannot instruct both a (7 year release clause), while also instructing a (for life clause). This would be a direct contradiction. Thus, we must figure out who falls under category A) and who falls under category B).

When you read the Verses in context, the Bible looks to actually do a pretty good job in distinguishing the Hebrew servants, from the rest. At this point, I'm growing tired of providing specific Verses. You claim to have read them all. When I do point out direct indicators, you do not seem to grasp or follow.

I am aware of the distinct groups. I discussed it earlier on in the thread. In fact there are 5 groups of servants/slaves covered in the law in various ways. Hebrew servants are the most detailed. You could also distinguish between male and female, increasing the categories by another 3 and also children, but I'm not entirely sure how they fit in.

The different approaches that we have, however is the cause of the problem. You appear to see these groups as totally distinct with no meeting point, whereas I see them as having some potential mobility - i.e. foreign slaves can partake of the Hebrew rules via the 'resident foreigner' clause that appears throughout the Torah.

I also don't see an issue with contradictory applications. It would be up to a Judge to determine which law is meant to be applicable for each circumstance. There are other cases where there seems to be ambiguity about which law gets precedence and the issues you present only really arise when you take these legalistically, which the Israelites weren't meant to (though if you read on through the Old Testament, it becomes clear that the Prophets berate the people for not obeying the laws at all).

 

[cvanwey]

I am aware of the distinct groups. I discussed it earlier on in the thread. In fact there are 5 groups of servants/slaves covered in the law in various ways. Hebrew servants are the most detailed. You could also distinguish between male and female, increasing the categories by another 3 and also children, but I'm not entirely sure how they fit in.

The different approaches that we have, however is the cause of the problem. You appear to see these groups as totally distinct with no meeting point, whereas I see them as having some potential mobility - i.e. foreign slaves can partake of the Hebrew rules via the 'resident foreigner' clause that appears throughout the Torah.

I also don't see an issue with contradictory applications. It would be up to a Judge to determine which law is meant to be applicable for each circumstance. There are other cases where there seems to be ambiguity about which law gets precedence and the issues you present only really arise when you take these legalistically, which the Israelites weren't meant to (though if you read on through the Old Testament, it becomes clear that the Prophets berate the people for not obeying the laws at all).

Let me clarify for you. There's really only two groups. No "judge" necessary or required, as God issues the only binding law

Group A (volunteer Hebrew servants) - via Deuteronomy 15:12-15, Exodus 21:2-6, Leviticus 25:39-43

Group B (everyone else) - via Leviticus 25:44-46

Group A and group B are treated differently, per God's instruction.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Let me clarify for you. There's really only two groups. No "judge" necessary or required, as God issues the only binding law

Group A (volunteer Hebrew servants) - via Deuteronomy 15:12, Exodus 21:2-6, Leviticus 25:39-43

Group B (everyone else) - via Leviticus 25:44-46

Group A and group B are treated differently, per God's instruction.

Wrong

Group A: Hired Workers (Lev 25: 50,53, Dt 15:18)

Group B: Hebrew Indentured Servants (various common references)

Group C: Resident Foreigner Indentured Servants (same rules as for Hebrews as per Ex 22:21 23:9, Lev 19: 33-34, Num 15:15-16, Dt 24:14

Group D: Foreign slaves (Lev 25:44-46, Dt 20:13-15)

Group E: Prisoners of war (Dt 20:10-11)

Who says 'God issues only the binding law'? (apart from you that is?).

 

[cvanwey]

I do not think you picked up on what I presented in my last response God favors Israelites. If you are not an Israelite, you are categorized as "group B".

(Group B) is not to be treated the same as Israelites, or (Group A).

A question I raised many posts ago.... Why would God place favorable treatment to some humans, based upon something they cannot control or help; (i.e.) their race...?

You have yet to provide any 'justification' for this question. Thus far, the only reasonable answer is that such instruction is/was man-made alone.

Wrong

Group A: Hired Workers (Lev 25: 50,53, Dt 15:18)

A "hired worker" could hardly be categorized as a 'slave', in any capacity, right?

Furthermore, you appear to be continually doubling down. If you read Deuteronomy 15:12-18, in CONTEXT, Verses 18 is still tied to Verse 12 You know, where the Bible goes out of it's way to clarify the Hebrew servants.

And Lv. 50 and 53 still gives special considerations, based upon their bloodline. For some strange reason, you left out important Verses there, yet AGAIN. Did you not yet learn, from only providing Dt. 15:13-15, and leaving out Verse 12? (i.e.):

“‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50 They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53 They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly."

Here's a follow up question... Based upon Verse 53, does this mean God is a-okay with treating non-Israelites 'ruthlessly'?

Group C: Resident Foreigner Indentured Servants (same rules as for Hebrews as per Ex 22:21 23:9, Lev 19: 33-34, Num 15:15-16, Dt 24:14

Ex. 22:21 is not speaking about the topic of "slavery". Nice try.
Ex. 23:9 is not speaking about the topic of "slavery". Nice try.
Lev. 19:33-34 is not speaking about the topic of "slavery". Nice try.
Nm.15:15-16 is not speaking about the topic of "slavery". Nice try.

Such Verses are telling the readers to not treat foreigners in a certain way. I'm sure you are aware that all foreigners aren't 'slaves', right???? As I stated prior, if the Bible does not go out of it's way to speak about 'slavery', then the Bible is not speaking about the topic of 'slavery'.

Group D: Foreign slaves (Lev 25:44-46, Dt 20:13-15)

Thus far, you have not demonstrated anything beyond group's A and B.

Follow up question... One in which @Clizby WampusCat already asked, for which you declined to answer...

Is it 'moral' to instruct that it is okay to treat slaves as 'property' for life?

And by 'property', this looks to include being okay to beat them, as long as they do not die. And if they are not an Israelite slave, they are merely to be set free alone, without any mention of slave compensation -- if their eye or tooth is removed.

Group E: Prisoners of war (Dt 20:10-11)

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

Who says 'God issues only the binding law'? (apart from you that is?).

God is the only true judge of the law, (what is truly right and wrong), wouldn't you agree?

Apparently, God has offered us a glimpse as to what God considers 'right' and 'wrong'. (i.e.)

If you are an Israelite 'slave', you are to be treated differently than non-Israelite 'slaves'. Hence, groups A and B.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

At best, you now merely have a contradiction

Your whole argument against my points on the Atlantic Slave Trade is based on the fact that Slave Owners could read parts of the Bible to support their actions.

I pointed this out ages ago. This does not justify the actions at all using the Bible. If we follow through this line of reasoning it is possible to justify murder, theft, rape, or anything you like because all you have to do is ignore the parts of the Bible that don't conform to your expectations (which is what the Slave Bible is).

And we are talking about Christianity here, not Judaism. Can a Christian justify the actions of these slave owners by using this verse: " Masters, treat your slaves the same way, giving up the use of threats, because you know that both you and they have the same master in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him. (Eph 6:9-11, cf Col 4:1)?

It is NOT possible to justify the Atlantic Slave Trade using the Whole Bible and the mind boggles that you got someone to agree with your response, particularly as almost every paragraph is accompanied by a winking face as if you know you are talking garbage.

 

[cvanwey]

Were you planning on addressing my last response? Or, is this your way of completely shifting gears?

Your whole argument against my points on the Atlantic Slave Trade is based on the fact that Slave Owners could read parts of the Bible to support their actions.

I pointed this out ages ago. This does not justify the actions at all using the Bible. If we follow through this line of reasoning it is possible to justify murder, theft, rape, or anything you like because all you have to do is ignore the parts of the Bible that don't conform to your expectations (which is what the Slave Bible is).

And we are talking about Christianity here, not Judaism. Can a Christian justify the actions of these slave owners by using this verse: " Masters, treat your slaves the same way, giving up the use of threats, because you know that both you and they have the same master in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him. (Eph 6:9-11, cf Col 4:1)?

It is NOT possible to justify the Atlantic Slave Trade using the Whole Bible and the mind boggles that you got someone to agree with your response, particularly as almost every paragraph is accompanied by a winking face as if you know you are talking garbage.

Yes, such slavery practices can be justified. All you need to do is read Lev. 25 entirely, and in context. If you are not an Israelite; you can be kept for life, passed down to the master's next of kin, and treated as "property" (or sub-human).

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

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

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

It would be one thing if Jesus expressed His disgust for 'slavery' entire. But instead, it seems He merely fine-tuned it's direct allowance.

And in regards to Verse 9. If the slave was being whipped, then surely (s)he must deserve it, right? Just like your child might deserve to be beaten with a rod or something...

Disobedience warrants a master's beating. This disobedience could be, not picking enough cotton, not picking enough corn, claiming you are sick, etc... The slave's role is to obey the master. (i.e.)

"slaves, obey your masters in everything"

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Do you not understand context? When the Bible is speaking about the topic of servants and/or slaves, the Bible seems to do a pretty decent job of distinguishing if it is speaking about your run-o-da-mill 'slave', verses a Hebrew servant. They are not to be treated the same. When the laws are written about slavery allowances, and it does not specify a Hebrew servant, it's implied to be about ALL the other slaves - (which do not go free after 7 years).

Case/point, all such Verses speak about how you are to treat the Israelites; whom are to be your servants: Dt. 15:12-15, Ex 21:2-6, Lv. 25:39-43.

However, if the Bible is not being careful to distinguish that they are an Israelite, then the Bible is speaking about all other 'slaves'. Such as: Ex 21:20-21, and Lv. 25:44-46.

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

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Your assertion is patently false:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

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

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

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Most/all slaves, especially during this time, were likely illiterate. Thus, there is really not much need to address your response below. Though I still could...

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

Neither option is particularly likely.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Let me clarify for you. There's really only two groups. No "judge" necessary or required, as God issues the only binding law

Group A (volunteer Hebrew servants) - via Deuteronomy 15:12-15, Exodus 21:2-6, Leviticus 25:39-43

Group B (everyone else) - via Leviticus 25:44-46

Group A and group B are treated differently, per God's instruction.

This is not clarity.

If no judge was necessary, why does God provide rules for their appointment. That seems a very odd thing to do.

You should also reconsider your reference to 'binding law'. In fact all Near Eastern Codes of Laws present examples (case law?) rather than binding legalist views. "The legal treatises teach practitioners about judicial wisdom" John Walton in Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.

The Law was never 'binding', it is guidance. You should probably read the whole book of Romans to see how the Torah failed at being 'binding'.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

A "hired worker" could hardly be categorized as a 'slave', in any capacity, right?

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

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

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

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Ex. 22:21 is not speaking about the topic of "slavery". Nice try.
Ex. 23:9 is not speaking about the topic of "slavery". Nice try.
Lev. 19:33-34 is not speaking about the topic of "slavery". Nice try.
Nm.15:15-16 is not speaking about the topic of "slavery". Nice try.

Such Verses are telling the readers to not treat foreigners in a certain way. I'm sure you are aware that all foreigners aren't 'slaves', right???? As I stated prior, if the Bible does not go out of it's way to speak about 'slavery', then the Bible is not speaking about the topic of 'slavery'.

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

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

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