Slavery, a Guide

[InterestedAtheist]

...so if this is the case, then how does one beat a foreign slave nearly to death but avoid breaking the other laws about "not oppressing the stranger ......... "?

Are we talking about this verse?
Leviticus 19:34 34The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
It seems that "the foreigner residing among you" is not referring to slaves, but to official foreign visitors - merchants, visiting dignitaries and the like. Many of the slaves at work during Biblical times were foreigners, but the Bible never refers to them as "foreign slaves", just as slaves.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The bad part of slavery is the mistreatment of the slaves, after that i don't say losing your freedom wouldn't be bad but that part is more morally grey really if they treat you well. Also the bible says you just couldn't be a slaver stealing people freedom just like that.

Funnily enough, this is an argument that was used by antebellum US slavers; slaves were, or should be, treated well. They were a lot better off in civilised countries than their barbaric African kingdoms.
Are you saying that you agree with this?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Because he IS good, the way he treats people, but you wouldn't understand since christian experiences for you are deluded things or hallucinations.

Got it. You're not interested in following the evidence, you don't even deny it, you just ignore it.
This is the Apologetics Forum, the purpose of which is to give "Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs."
In a debating forum, there are winners and losers. I think this means we win.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are we talking about this verse?
Leviticus 19:34 34The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
It seems that "the foreigner residing among you" is not referring to slaves, but to official foreign visitors - merchants, visiting dignitaries and the like. Many of the slaves at work during Biblical times were foreigners, but the Bible never refers to them as "foreign slaves", just as slaves.

I wasn't precisely referring to that verse but rather to a multitude of verses in the Torah regarding "strangers, foreigners, and sojourners." However, I do appreciate your effort in citing what I think is at least a partially relevant verse and part of the overall collection to which I am referring. And I thank you for that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I wasn't precisely referring to that verse but rather to a multitude of verses in the Torah regarding "strangers, foreigners, and sojourners." However, I do appreciate your effort in citing what I think is at least a partially relevant verse and part of the overall collection to which I am referring. And I thank you for that.

Thank you very much. Courtesy is a gift to both the giver and the receiver.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

yeah i don't know, all i do know is God is good and wants peoples well-being and happiness, a lot of christians who have received from God can say he is good. We should just only get close to him.

Well I have actual text that says God is not doing or condoning good things and only your assertion that he is good. Why should I believe you over what the text says.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I said I'd take a look at the case for/against slavery, but examining what 5 books of the Bible say about slavery is more than just looking up every verse that mentions the subject - particularly when the responses from atheists often seem to be devoid of seeing the wider context. I started to look at Exodus but got sidetracked, nevertheless I will try and comment based on what I have read so far.

This is specifically for male Hebrew slaves. It says that male Hebrew slaves can be purchased to serve for six years, then released without any compensation. This mentions purchasing as property and that they are not free to leave since after 6 years they go free.

It should be noted that the same word is used for both slave and servant. The context is likely to determine which is meant, but we should not forget that the an Israelite using the term saw little difference between the two (else they would have a different word). Also we should consider the cultural context.

Firstly the purchasing of slaves... one has to ask how an Israelite became a slave in the first place. Later on it is implied that this a choice made by the 'slave' to put himself and his family into servitude. So. the slave is someone who has put themselves into slavery for a period of time (next Jubilee) and the purchaser is just continuing that. The payment seems to be one to compensate the original owner for his loss of a servant. The servant however can go free at any time... but has to pay compensation to his master for the loss... or wait out the term of his contract, at which point there is nothing to pay.

I'm a contract worker. If I break my contract before a prescribed term (1 month) I have to pay the company I contract with compensation (never had to do this thankfully, but I have had gardening leave from a company that has broken the contract early). While not the same, there are certainly similarities and you are wrong in your assessment "that they are not free to leave since after 6 years they go free."

I read the NET, where it says "...in the seventh year he will go out free without paying anything". Which I think is reasonable to assume that he can go free by payment otherwise. The ESV says something similar.

My ESV study Bible points out that slaves were NOT included in the laws on Personal Property in the following chapter. Perhaps something to look at in more detail when we get there.

My conclusion: 'Servant' might be a better term than 'slave' [it is what the NET uses] and while purchasing is going on, the servant has chosen to be in that position of servitude (usually to pay off debt) and can go free at any time, but compensation to his master is necessary unless he is at the end of the seventh year (from other passages the years of Jubilee were set years, so a person was rarely putting themselves into the full seven years of slavery... unless they chose to continue a previous term.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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

The idea that a master will "trick" a servant into staying seems both cynical and based on modern thinking, not ancient. Such deceit would not have boded favourably for the master when he comes before God. Bear in mind that only a chapter earlier false testimony is roundly condemned by God. And trickery is definitely false testimony.

Nor do the children belong to the Master forever.. only until they come of age at which point they are free to go elsewhere (and my understanding of the culture is that the men would get an inheritance from their guardian - in this case the master, while the women would be given in arranged marriage thereby gaining the master a bride price) and the wife would be free to marry someone else (and perhaps gain the master a bride price).

Culturally also, women (and children) were to be looked after and hopefully not be put into a position of destitution. There are laws for widows and orphans for example and much of the claims of misogyny in the law fails to see that women are to be protected.

My NET points out as part of the translation notes that men paid a bride price for his wife. For the slave to get a wife from his master meant the master forgoing the bride price and given that the man would have gone into slavery because of destitution, women and children would likely have been better off with the master.

So the clause for the splitting up of the family is actually protection for them all and certainly not a bad thing. There is the possibility of restoration (which if you read through the whole law seems to be a general theme - the idea being that nobody is wrongfully punished for something beyond their control) either by the former slave earning enough to pay the bride price for his wife (and children) or realising that this is not a possibility and therefore putting himself into permanent servitude (meaning that the master has to look after him for life). It should be pointed out that the whole ear piercing thing is signifier of a contract between the servant and his master, so he cannot legitimately be sold on.

The prime purpose of slavery among the Israelites seems to be to ensure that no-one starves, that all are looked after and are given opportunities to reclaim their freedom.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Exodus 21:20-21

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

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

I think it is difficult to be definitive about what this means, particularly given the fairly vague 'a day or two'. Is it a day? Is it two? As elsewhere there is a principle involved, though trying to be clear on what the principle is, is going to be difficult. I would hazard a guess that it is considered murder if the death is seen as a result of the beating (hence the day or two) and might well be interpreted as such - e.g. if the slave slips over and dies due to negligence and it happens a day after a severe beating - unless the beating can be seen to have been the cause of the slip, then no murder charge will be put forth.

I've already pointed out the contract entered into as part of becoming a slave. 'for the slave is his money' is a pretty literal translation of the phrase in Hebrew and is possibly better than 'property' though some have rendered it that way. Not sure if that matters all that much, though if the slave is dead.

Why is the master beating the slave in the first place - one can only assume that he is not getting his money's worth - that the slave is perhaps lazy. But a severe beating is going, at the very least, to the put the master out of pocket, and at worst give him a death sentence. One can certainly take away from this that beating your slave is not a good thing, regardless of provocation.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I said I'd take a look at the case for/against slavery, but examining what 5 books of the Bible say about slavery is more than just looking up every verse that mentions the subject - particularly when the responses from atheists often seem to be devoid of seeing the wider context. I started to look at Exodus but got sidetracked, nevertheless I will try and comment based on what I have read so far.

Thanks

It should be noted that the same word is used for both slave and servant. The context is likely to determine which is meant, but we should not forget that the an Israelite using the term saw little difference between the two (else they would have a different word). Also we should consider the cultural context.

Sure. We can use servant or slave whatever you like. However slave is used in most translations.

Firstly the purchasing of slaves... one has to ask how an Israelite became a slave in the first place. Later on it is implied that this a choice made by the 'slave' to put himself and his family into servitude. So. the slave is someone who has put themselves into slavery for a period of time (next Jubilee) and the purchaser is just continuing that.

Where does it imply it was a choice?

The payment seems to be one to compensate the original owner for his loss of a servant. The servant however can go free at any time... but has to pay compensation to his master for the loss... or wait out the term of his contract, at which point there is nothing to pay.

It doe snot say the male Hebrew servant can go free at any time. it say she can go free after six years with specific rules.

I'm a contract worker. If I break my contract before a prescribed term (1 month) I have to pay the company I contract with compensation (never had to do this thankfully, but I have had gardening leave from a company that has broken the contract early). While not the same, there are certainly similarities and you are wrong in your assessment "that they are not free to leave since after 6 years they go free."

This is not the same. I see nowhere where it says the servant canb go free at any time if they pay a debt.

I read the NET, where it says "...in the seventh year he will go out free without paying anything". Which I think is reasonable to assume that he can go free by payment otherwise. The ESV says something similar.

I think this is reading into the text what is not there. Nowhere do I read that they can go free at any time for a fee.

My ESV study Bible points out that slaves were NOT included in the laws on Personal Property in the following chapter. Perhaps something to look at in more detail when we get there.

Only Hebrew male slaves.

My conclusion: 'Servant' might be a better term than 'slave' [it is what the NET uses] and while purchasing is going on, the servant has chosen to be in that position of servitude (usually to pay off debt) and can go free at any time, but compensation to his master is necessary unless he is at the end of the seventh year (from other passages the years of Jubilee were set years, so a person was rarely putting themselves into the full seven years of slavery... unless they chose to continue a previous term.

I don't see where it says the slave is voluntary or can go free at any time. You are reading that into the text in my opinion. Also note that these rules discussed are only for male Hebrew slaves as stated in Exodus 21:1-3.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The idea that a master will "trick" a servant into staying seems both cynical and based on modern thinking, not ancient. Such deceit would not have boded favourably for the master when he comes before God. Bear in mind that only a chapter earlier false testimony is roundly condemned by God. And trickery is definitely false testimony.

Ok, I understand if you don't like the term trick. But it does say that if a master gives him a wife which seems like the servant has no choice in the matter and the wife has his children the children cannot go with him at the year of Jubilee. Why wouldn't a servant owner not do this? If the servant then loves the children he will have to stay with the servant owner forever. This is manipulative in my opinion. Why even have this law? The debt is payed and the wife an children owe no debt, so the only purpose is to be able to keep the servant forever.

Nor do the children belong to the Master forever.. only until they come of age at which point they are free to go elsewhere (and my understanding of the culture is that the men would get an inheritance from their guardian - in this case the master, while the women would be given in arranged marriage thereby gaining the master a bride price) and the wife would be free to marry someone else (and perhaps gain the master a bride price).

Nowhere in the scripture does it say this. It says the servant will be the masters servant forever.

Culturally also, women (and children) were to be looked after and hopefully not be put into a position of destitution. There are laws for widows and orphans for example and much of the claims of misogyny in the law fails to see that women are to be protected.

Yes and these laws do not allow for the women to have a choice in them. That is misogyny.

My NET points out as part of the translation notes that men paid a bride price for his wife. For the slave to get a wife from his master meant the master forgoing the bride price and given that the man would have gone into slavery because of destitution, women and children would likely have been better off with the master.

That does not matter. What matters is that the wife and children have no say in the matter. Why should they not be able to decide for themselves what should happen to them?

So the clause for the splitting up of the family is actually protection for them all and certainly not a bad thing. There is the possibility of restoration (which if you read through the whole law seems to be a general theme - the idea being that nobody is wrongfully punished for something beyond their control) either by the former slave earning enough to pay the bride price for his wife (and children) or realising that this is not a possibility and therefore putting himself into permanent servitude (meaning that the master has to look after him for life). It should be pointed out that the whole ear piercing thing is signifier of a contract between the servant and his master, so he cannot legitimately be sold on.

And there is no better way to do that?

The prime purpose of slavery among the Israelites seems to be to ensure that no-one starves, that all are looked after and are given opportunities to reclaim their freedom.

Maybe a claim for Hebrew male slaves but if you continue you will see that this is not the case for all slaves, especially non Hebrew slaves.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I think it is difficult to be definitive about what this means, particularly given the fairly vague 'a day or two'. Is it a day? Is it two? As elsewhere there is a principle involved, though trying to be clear on what the principle is, is going to be difficult. I would hazard a guess that it is considered murder if the death is seen as a result of the beating (hence the day or two) and might well be interpreted as such - e.g. if the slave slips over and dies due to negligence and it happens a day after a severe beating - unless the beating can be seen to have been the cause of the slip, then no murder charge will be put forth.

So beating a slave/servant is ok in some circumstances? This is telling a slaveowner that they can beat a slave with a rod.

I've already pointed out the contract entered into as part of becoming a slave. 'for the slave is his money' is a pretty literal translation of the phrase in Hebrew and is possibly better than 'property' though some have rendered it that way. Not sure if that matters all that much, though if the slave is dead.

People should never be considered property or money. This should be able to be agreed upon by everyone. Even if that was part of the culture doe snot mean that it was right. Racism is part of our culture, that does not make it right.

Why is the master beating the slave in the first place - one can only assume that he is not getting his money's worth - that the slave is perhaps lazy. But a severe beating is going, at the very least, to the put the master out of pocket, and at worst give him a death sentence. One can certainly take away from this that beating your slave is not a good thing, regardless of provocation.

It is never moral to beat a slave for being lazy or not getting the masters money worth. Even if you can somehow get that it is not a good thing to beat a slave it can also be taken that it is saying that it is ok to beat a slave because that is what the words say. If God wanted to get the point across that beating slaves is wrong He failed miserably. He should have just said, Do not beat slaves/servant with anything at any time. But God never did that.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Where does it imply it was a choice?

I thought this was general knowledge. It is also somewhat commonsensical under the particular laws of the Israelites.

Most cultures of the day allowed people to sell themselves to pay off debts, just as most allowed slaves to pay for their freedom. I can't tell you specifically where I got that from as general knowledge (though I do know it was common in Roman Slavery) - it may have been any number of places. In looking through this passage I noted a comment in two study bibles and the one commentary I have access to at the moment. Though I think it likely I originally noted it in Roland de Vaux's Ancient Israel book which deals with the customs (an excellent source of details). I've not yet come across anyone who disagrees that it was standard practice. Copan also mentions it in his book, which I recall saying you had critiqued, and in an article I skimmed through about half an hour ago. The only actual books looking at the ethics of Biblical slavery are currently out of my reach, but I suspect they would say so too.

As for commonsensical - you have read the Biblical laws - how else do they become slaves? I'm trying to think of a circumstance where entry into slavery is not a choice in the context presented.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

It doe snot say the male Hebrew servant can go free at any time. it say she can go free after six years with specific rules.

I beg to differ. The fact that a servant had worth and that they had put themselves into servitude means that they can be bought off. It explicitly states this for enslavement to foreigners within Israel (Leviticus 25:47+) - but if true of indentured slavery to a foreigner, then how much more to an Israelite? And the words of Exodus don't preclude that and I think actually imply it based on ESV quote, though it is clearer in the NET. If he can leave in the 7th year without paying anything, then the implication is that he could leave earlier by paying something. I don't see a problem with that view, given that it fits with the general trends of discussions of slavery/servanthood.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I thought this was general knowledge. It is also somewhat commonsensical under the particular laws of the Israelites.

Most cultures of the day allowed people to sell themselves to pay off debts, just as most allowed slaves to pay for their freedom. I can't tell you specifically where I got that from as general knowledge (though I do know it was common in Roman Slavery) - it may have been any number of places. In looking through this passage I noted a comment in two study bibles and the one commentary I have access to at the moment. Though I think it likely I originally noted it in Roland de Vaux's Ancient Israel book which deals with the customs (an excellent source of details). I've not yet come across anyone who disagrees that it was standard practice. Copan also mentions it in his book, which I recall saying you had critiqued, and in an article I skimmed through about half an hour ago. The only actual books looking at the ethics of Biblical slavery are currently out of my reach, but I suspect they would say so too.

As for commonsensical - you have read the Biblical laws - how else do they become slaves? I'm trying to think of a circumstance where entry into slavery is not a choice in the context presented.

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?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I beg to differ. The fact that a servant had worth and that they had put themselves into servitude means that they can be bought off. It explicitly states this for enslavement to foreigners within Israel (Leviticus 25:47+) - but if true of indentured slavery to a foreigner, then how much more to an Israelite?

It also says that the Israelites can go get slaves form the nations around them and enslave them for life and treat them as property and bequeath them to their descendants. Just because some slaves have different rules doe snot mean all were treated the same way.

And the words of Exodus don't preclude that and I think actually imply it based on ESV quote, though it is clearer in the NET. If he can leave in the 7th year without paying anything, then the implication is that he could leave earlier by paying something. I don't see a problem with that view, given that it fits with the general trends of discussions of slavery/servanthood.

The problem I see is that the text does not say this. It does say this:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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. ~ Lev 25:44-46. NIV.

So the Israelites can get slaves for life from the nations around them. If they are slaves for life and treated as property that is not indentured servitude.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Yes and these laws do not allow for the women to have a choice in them. That is misogyny.

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

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.

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.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

And there is no better way to do that?

And you see there is?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Maybe a claim for Hebrew male slaves but if you continue you will see that this is not the case for all slaves, especially non Hebrew slaves.

I know there are differences. I'm addressing the issues as they arise in your commentary.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

People should never be considered property or money. This should be able to be agreed upon by everyone. Even if that was part of the culture doe snot mean that it was right. Racism is part of our culture, that does not make it right.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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).

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).

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.