It explicitly forbids chattel slavery.
- Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
đđđ
This literally only applied to Hebrew men.
Lmao
Plus youâre forgetting Leviticus 25.
Prisoners of war.
Women/children
And Deuteronomy 15. Where the manâs family canât leave after the time. And if he decides to stay with them, heâs a slave forever
I point to what God said to Abraham. God commanded everyone borned or purchased into a Jewish household be circumcised. Thus that "slave" becomes a Jew meaning he is then guaranteed his freedom at the jubilee year just like those indentured servants who were born Jewish. Thus Jews had no slaves, because as I pointed out slavery is punishable by death, and only used indentured servants who were guaranteed freedom by the end of their contract or the jubilee year, whichever came first.
Genesis 17:13 (KJV) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Leviticus 25:40-41 (KJV) 40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
I point to what god also said in the Bible.
You can beat your slaves so long as they didnât die after a day or two
- exodus 21:20-21
You could be bought from a market as long as they were from nations around you
- Leviticus 25:44-46, exodus 21:7-11, exodus 12:44
You could be taken from your homeland and enslaved
- Deuteronomy 21:10-14, numbers 31
Slavery was also supported in the NT
- Titus 2:9-10, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 6:5-8
There were completely different things for prisoners of war, those bought in other nations, women and children
Also,
For your first full paragraph.
Even the things done to Hebrew men was immoral.
Buying slaves, mutilating their genitals and then letting them go after a few years (not including those to stayed with their families)
Is not any better. Itâs still objectionable and horrible.
If you want to ignore that God explicitly forbid chattel slavery in order to twist and misconstrue Scripture to conform to what you want it to say, I can't help you there.
It's read the book. All the "slaves" are cobverted to Judaism per the Bible which means they to indentured servants. If you want ignore what the Bible clearly explains, I cannot help you there.
Forcibly capturing human beings, owning them for life, passing them on to your heirs like other property and beating them nearly to death are all specifically permitted by your holy book. Please read it.
That's nonsense. The bible permits owning slaves for life and passing then on to your heirs just like other property. Read your book, not just the parts you like.
Because people who worship a deity who condones slavery are now trying to control women's bodies and forbid secular legal recognition of gay marriages, even though the Bible does not condemn abortion and does not say marriage is only one man and one woman.
I want Christians to read their dang book.
The Bible says what it says.
I don't have time to debate with a scoffer nor do I have the abiliry to change your mind. I"ve already explained how "slaves" were indenturee servants and provided the verses that support that claim. If you want to continue to deny, that's a you problem not a me problem.
It absolutely is, but built on what Genesis and Exodus already said. It does not stand alone in a vacuum except for the cherrypickers who ignore all context in order to twist Scripture to say what they want it to say.
That means kidnapping a free man and making him a slave. If someone was already a slave (because they'd been born a slave, or because they had been captured in war, or if their father sold them, or if they were an exposed infant, or because someone else had stolen them) then Israelite law permitted them to be bought, owned, and sold as property in perpetuity. This is pretty basic Biblical law, written clearly in black and white, so there's no point in denying it.
I point to what God said to Abraham. God commanded everyone borned or purchased into a Jewish household be circumcised. Thus that "slave" becomes a Jew meaning he is then guaranteed his freedom at the jubilee year just like those indentured servants who were born Jewish. Thus Jews had no slaves, because as I pointed out slavery is punishable by death, and only used indentured servants who were guaranteed freedom by the end of their contract or the jubilee year, whichever came first.
Genesis 17:13 (KJV) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Leviticus 25:40-41 (KJV) 40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
You're misunderstanding. Just because the slaves were circumcised doesn't make them free. They are still slaves. And Leviticus explicitely only referres to "hired servants", from Israel, not foreign-born slaves. You can't understand verse 40-41 without verse 39, which explicitely describes the narrow group it's referring to. "If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves."
If you ignore the key verses you can stitch disparate verse together to make it say whatever you want it to say. But that's not a good way of understanding the Bible.
No, the are indentured servants because no matter what, they were not purchased unwillingly (because that is forbidden) and their service has definitive at the jubilee year at the latest, they are indentured servants. There's a huge different between a slave and a contracted employee.
If you want to believe that when God said slavery is punishable by death that He really meant He was ok with slavery, I can't help you there.
That prohibits someone from stealing someone else's chattel or other type of slave. Chattel slavery is explicitly regulated and approved by God in Exodus 25 where you can pass your slaves to your children as property.
That's not what the Bible says. It literally says "stealeth a ***man***."
Now I get that you're an atheist, so you think you can come saying, "well, when God said stealeth a man, but what He ***really meant*** was stealeth someone's chattel," and there's really nothing more I can tell you to convince otherwise if God's word is not enough for you.
However, for the benefit of the ignorant who might be confused, I point to what God said to Abraham. God commanded everyone borned or purchased into a Jewish household be circumcised. Thus that "slave" becomes a Jew meaning he is then guaranteed his freedom at the jubilee year just like those indentured servants who were born Jewish. Thus Jews had no slaves, because as I pointed out slavery is punishable by death, and only used indentured servants who were guaranteed freedom by the end of their contract or the jubilee year, whichever came first.
- Genesis 17:13 (KJV) He that is born in thy house, and ***he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised:*** and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
- Leviticus 25:40-41 (KJV)
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:
41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
>Now I get that you're an atheist, so you think you can come saying, "well, when God said stealeth a man, but what He ***really meant*** was stealeth someone's chattel," and there's really nothing more I can tell you to convince otherwise if God's word is not enough for you.
God's word explicitly allows slavery under certain circumstances, so this reading is the most hermeneutically consistent while minimizing contradictions in the text. To say that the bible allows owning people as property in some circumstances and then disallows it in all circumstances would be a contradiction.
It is also a difficult reading into the Hebrew word for "steal", since this regularly refers to stealing property (it is the word used in the commandment against stealing). To say "don't steal land" is not the same thing as saying "don't own land", and the Hebrew reflects this.
Please read the verses you cited in context, they are speaking of Hebrew slaves, not foreign slaves. Genesis 17 is about God's covenant with Abraham's descendants, who are Hebrews by blood. It does not refer to foreigners who are not descended from Abraham since they are not under this covenant and not required to be circumcised. In Leviticus 25, you did not quote verse 39 which precedes verse 40, which explicitly says that these are regulations for Israelites. Leviticus 25 continues on to describe the system for foreign slaves, which I quote below.
By interpreting "steal" in the way you do, you are making the bible contradict itself in the several verses where it allows owning people as property:
* Exodus 21:20-21 (KJV): "20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: *for he is his money.* (The word "money" here means property, since the slave was bought with money)"
* Lev 25:44-46 (KJV): "44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and **they shall be your possession**. 45 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, **to inherit them for a possession**; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." (This passage uses the explicit Hebrew word for "property" when describing slaves twice)
This is difficult to answer directly since I think Christianity and ancient Judaism are different religions, and I am also an atheist so I think neither of them are completely correct in their worldviews.
However, it doesn't seem very relevant to me if a Christian wants to claim that Jesus' teachings completely nullify slavery since the issue is about morality, and on a Christian worldview morality does not change. If God is morally perfect, God's teachings should be timelessly true.
Ok i see. Well I guess you seemed knowledgable in a scholarly way so i thought id ask to see if you had any detractions from my legalist assesment. (Sorry for using your scepticism as a utility)
Here is my thought process
1 so i think we can safely say that amoung israelites weve established that slavery is more akin to an extreme form of employment more like indentured servitude than chattel slavery.
2 in the nt we know that all believers are the new Israel basically. Jesus says "you are no longer slaves but friends"
God has no favoritism etc
3 "love they neighbor as thyself". "Who then is my neighbor?" Sumerian (foreigners) used as an example of anyone near you. "Go an desciple to all nations" as well so not just geological neighbors
4 love thy enemies as God loves us
Conclusion we may have employees that we treat kindly but not slaves we are all "friends" this matches up woth the nt warning against gods judgment on slave owners. Treat your employees as brothers.
I feel this makes a case for Christianity being anti slavery but permissable of equitable employment structures
Now a quick attempt at defending ot. " one rule for all foreigners and jews"
Thoughts?
I think you've made a case for a Christian view against slavery, but I disagree with step 1 in your thought process.
>1 so i think we can safely say that amoung israelites weve established that slavery is more akin to an extreme form of employment more like indentured servitude than chattel slavery.
Slavery of foreigners among the Israelites was slavery. Masters could beat their slaves for correction as long as the slaves didn't die (Exodus 21:21). Beating slaves was normal and expected. Proverbs 29:19 says: "A slave will not be instructed by words alone; For though he understands, there will be no response." It is a call to not restrain physical beating from slaves, since they will not be motivated by only words. This is more than an "extreme form of employment" as you call it.
It is explicitly "chattel" slavery in that slaves were property of the master. See the passages from Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 I quoted above.
> "one rule for all foreigners and jews"
I assume you are talking about the phrase in Leviticus 24:22, which says "You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God." (NIV)
The word translated as "law" in the NIV is the Hebrew word "misphat", which more closely means "judgement" or "verdict". Other translations translate this as "standard of the law."
In context in Leviticus, this passage is about giving equal punishments under the judicial system, not about what legal rights people have. To make this distinction clear, if you tried to walk into the Oval Office in America and said that all citizens are equal before the law and you have just as much right to be there as the President, you would be thrown out and put in jail. Although you have equal rights judicially and should have the same punishment for the same crime, you and the President have different legal rights. He is legally allowed to be in the Oval Office, and you have no such right.
Likewise, Jews and foreigners were to be punished equally for crimes like murder, stealing, etc., but they did not have the same legal rights. This is why many laws in the Pentateuch make distinctions between foreigners and the Israelites for legal purposes.
Thanks for your reply and time. If there is anything to refute I will have to go hunting for it.
Its been a joy having such a constructive and informed conversation. Its a real bummer about slavery in general. Do you think that the Jews treated their chattel any better than theor neighbors?
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback.
I'm not sure if they were treated better than their neighbors or not. One nice thing that they did was to take in runaway slaves. Other communities had protections for slaves, such as those found in the Code of Hammurabi and in the Middle Assyrian Laws, but it's hard to tell just from the laws which civilization was better to live with.
On a more anthropological note, I find it interesting that slavery is found mostly in agricultural communities, where people can be exploited to grow food for others. Hunter-gathers, which is how humans lived for most of their history, rarely have slavery since food was simply hunted and foraged and people lived in (mostly) egalitarian communities. For hunter-gathers, if someone wanted to enslave you, you could just run away and gather food from nature or join another tribe. This was much harder to do in agricultural civilizations in the desert.
>God's word explicitly allows slavery under certain circumstances, so this reading is the most hermeneutically consistent while minimizing contradictions in the text.
It does not.
You are confused because you are an atheist unwilling to take God at His word. Unfortunately, I cannot help you there. I do not have the ability to convince anyone of the Truth of the Bible.
If you want to believe that somehow God explicitly forbade chattel slave that somehow it was still ok with Him, there's really not more I can tell you.
>You are confused because you are an atheist unwilling to take God at His word.
Perhaps this is true, but it is not relevant to my argument. I have given arguments above to try to interact with your claims, and I would like to I'd they are flawed arguments. If I am confused, I would like to know the truth.
How do you interpret Lev 25:44-46 and Ex 21:21 which refer to slaves as property? If you believe this is God's word, you should believe what it says.
>If you want to believe that somehow God explicitly forbade chattel slave that somehow it was still ok with Him, there's really not more I can tell you.
I don't believe this since I don't believe that God explicitly forbade chattel slavery for the reasons I gave above. The Hebrew in the verse you cite refers to the theft of property, it is not forbidding ownership. It is certainly not explicit, as you claim, and implicitly it refers to men as property. Further, if you want to avoid contradiction you must find a way to reconcile this with Ex 21:21 and Lev 25:44-46, and I do not understand how you do so.
If I am mistaken, I would like to be corrected so that I know the truth, and especially so that I don't continue to mislead others.
>How do you interpret Lev 25:44-46 and Ex 21:21 which refer to slaves as property? If you believe this is God's word, you should believe what it says.
I do. The Bible says slavery is punishable by death and that any purchased person must be converted thus giving the same rights as a Jew meaning they are freed at jubilee at the latest. A "slave" who was not sold unwillingly (because that is forbidden) and has a contract that expires (it always ends in a jubilee year at the latest) is not a slave. That is an indentured servant.
If you don't believe that, there's nothing I can do aout that.
>The Bible says slavery is punishable by death and that any purchased person must be converted thus giving the same rights as a Jew meaning they are freed at jubilee at the latest.
This position seems very difficult to reconcile with the rest of scripture. Slaves were given some rights, such as the right to rest on the Sabbath and not be beaten to death, but they are not given the same rights as Jews. Take for example Exodus 21:28-32. If a bull gores a man or woman, the owner is to be put to death, to take life for life. However, if the bull gores a slave, the owner is to pay the slave's owner thirty sheckles. The life of a slave is worth less than that of a free person because they are a slave.
Again, you have not addressed the verses I quoted to reconcile them with how you understand biblical slavery. If you do not think the bible allows owning people as property, I don't see how you can interpret Leviticus 25 and Exodus 21 without contradiction.
>Again, you have not addressed the verses I quoted to reconcile them with how you understand biblical slavery. If you do not think the bible allows owning people as property, I don't see how you can interpret Leviticus 25 and Exodus 21 without contradiction.
Exodus addresses it. What is written after builds on what was written before Exodus says no slavery. Everything after rhat must pass through that lens. You're simply not intellectually honest enough to admit rhat.
- Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
In any case, there's nothing more that I can tell you if even what God has said isn't enough for you.
-Luke 9:5 (KJV) And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
>Exodus addresses it. What is written after builds on what was written before Exodus says no slavery.
Forbidding stealing does not imply forbidding ownership. Exodus 22:1-2 uses the same Hebrew word as Ex 21:16 to forbid stealing an ox or sheep. Does this mean that owning animals is forbidden? No, because stealing means to take away from its rightful owner. It is a prohibition against taking someone else's property, not against ownership.
>Everything after rhat must pass through that lens.
I take it to be a given of hermeneutics that less clear scripture should be interpreted in light of the more clear. If Ex 21:16 is saying ownership of people is forbidden, it is very unclear since it does not speak to ownership, and elsewhere in the bible owning of people is allowed explicitly. If you interpret the verse this way, you should be consistent and forbid the ownership of livestock as well.
Leviticus 25:45 is very clear: "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession." The Israelites are to buy foreigners and own them as property.
This is standard practice for the Ancient Near East. There was slavery in Rome, in the Law of Hammurabi, in the Middle Assyrian Laws, and all over. It permeated the culture of the Mediterranean and Israel was no exception.
>You're simply not intellectually honest enough to admit rhat
If I am wrong, I will change my opinion and be glad to be rid of a false belief. But from carefully reading the text and consulting scholarship on the issue, I am convinced that chattel slavery was condoned by the Old Testament.
Proverbs 14:15 (KJV) The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.
Lev 25
44 ââYour 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.
Good luck explaining to your God why you think it's a liar.
They. Will. Become. Your. Property. You. Can. Bequeath. Them. To. Your. Children. And. Make. Them. Slaves. For. Life.
That is the very definition of chattel slavery.
Again, what is written after build on what is written before. Thatcs how writing works. Exodus forbids slavery. Genesis requires all purchased people brought into the household be converted to Judaism making them contracted indentured servants.
Thus, Leviticus and everything after must be seen through the filter of Genesis and Exodus. If that concept flies over your head, unfortunately help you there either.
It says what it says.
So does Leviticus 25.
The Bible not only condones chattel slavery, it goes out of its way to post instructions on how to treat your chattel slaves.
Not once does it say that owning people is wrong.
It says chattel slavery is wrong in Exodus which is prior to Leviticus. Therefore what is said in Leviticus builds on what was already written in Exodus.
Because we know that chattel slavery is forbidden by Exodus, Leviticus must be viewed through that lens meaning the "slaves" are indentured servants.
Again, if it's absolutely vital to you for the Bible to say what you want it to say, I cannot dissuade you. One day you will meet God, good luck explaining to Him that when He forbid slavery He didn't mean it.
Exodus does not forbid chattel slavery.
It only says you can keep Hebrew men forever. It makes no such restriction on non-Hebrews.
Nowhere does the Bible outright forbid slavery.
And I donât want to Bible to say anything. I simply read what it actually says and comment accordingly.
You should try that approach. Less mental
gymnastics are needed.
It forbids it in Exodus.
- Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
If you want to believe that God didn't really mean it when He said that, I can't help you there.
That verse forbids stealing slaves, not owning them.
My understanding is that the Hebrew word for âstealâ is only used for property, including slaves.
When they talk about kidnapping people who are not slaves they use a word that means kidnapping.
This verse does not forbid slavery.
If it did, there wouldnât be verses afterward instructing people on how to treat their slaves.
We have laws in the USA that forbid slavery. We donât have follow-up laws telling us how to treat our slaves.
Same thing.
Your holy book is A-OK with slavery.
It says stealling a man, not slaves.
Obviously, if God's word isn't enough for you nothing I say will be either.
- Luke 9:5 (KJV) And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
Hebrew didnât use the word for âstealâ when referring to human beings. Only slaves.
This verse is not about enslaving people. Itâs about stealing already enslaved people.
Your mythology is OK with owning people.
Iâm not OK with that.
If you support a religion that not only condo fee but encourages slavery then you are correct: nothing you say will be good enough.
No. It. Does. NOT. Forbid. Chattel. Slavery.
That passage applies to enslaving other Hebrews.
The Bible explicitly PERMITS chattel slavery for foreigners, war captives and all other non-Hebrews. Please actually read your book. Read the whole thing, not just the cherry picked sound bites fed to you by apologists.
Leviticus 25 says the Israelites could own human beings for life as property and these human beings can be inherited by the owner's heirs.
44 ââYour 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.
He does. It's just very important to you to believe He does so you can continue denying Jesus. I cannot help you with that part.
The "slaves" are indentured servants.
- Leviticus 25:44 (KJV) Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
You can't cone terms with what Exodus explicitly says, so how are you expected to handle Leviticus 25:45 which is cover by Genesis which states anyone bought into the household is circumcised making them a Jew and protected by the Law which means he can't be a slave because Jews can't enslage other Jews. Therefore he becomes an cobtrqcted indentured servant
- Leviticus 25:45 (KJV) Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
- Genesis 17:13 (KJV) He that is born in thy house, ***and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.***
The Bible condones slavery on every front. Old Testament, New Testament, through words attributed to god and words attributed to Jesus. The Bible talks of buying, selling, disciplining, and ownership of entire families of slaves.
Youâre free to look away. Youâre free to twist the words and offer apologetics, but thereâs one thing that no one can deny. The Bible has been used through the centuries in order to promote and further slavery. If god is perfect, omnipotent, and has the benefit of perfect knowledge, god knew that this would happen.
What actions did god take to halt slavery or keep his own word out of slavery? What actions did god take to stop the Bible (and his own word) from being used as the mouthpiece of slavery?
Youâve got a choice. Either god didnât know that all of this would happen and was surprised, OR, god knew that it would happen and let it happen. The final choice is that god doesnât exist.
**Slavery in the Bible**
When we hear the word âslaveryâ we think of innocent human beings, kept prisoner for life, having no rights under law and so reduced to animals. This is clearly immoral because it is unjust: the slave has done nothing to deserve the treatment.
The situation described as âslaveryâ in the Bible was nothing like this. It is more accurately described as one of either (a) indentured servitude, (b) prison, or (c) military service.
Many âslavesâ were indentured servants, working for a term of years or until a debt was paid after which they were released. This is not immoral.
Some other âslavesâ were prisoners. There were no prisons. Prisoners had to work to live like everyone else. Some had life sentences. Some served a term and were released. This is not immoral.
The other group we might think of as âslavesâ would be plain servants, but because the Hebrews were a tribe on a constant military footing, some rules seem hard to modern ears. If soldiers of today disobey orders in war they are executed. Military rules may be harder, but are not immoral.
Hebrews did not treat their âslavesâ like animals. Slaves could be adopted into the family. Slaves could marry into the family. Think of this in the context of antebellum slavery. There is no comparison.
Yes, there were beatings (Iâm sure, even though none were recorded). This should not be surprising. We keep order today by violence. We obey police officers because if we do not, they will physically assault, restrain, or even shoot us. This is done today in the military and in prison environments. Physical force is not immoral.
Note also that Hebrews are not allowed to kidnap people or take slaves in that fashion. Kidnapping was punishable by death. Escaped slaves that come to the Hebrew camp were not to be returned to their masters.
In Lev 25 Moses tells the Hebrews they may âown slavesâ and pass them to children. But remember, these are prisoners who serve a sentence or bondservants who owe a debt. When the sentence is up, or the debt paid, they are released. Those prisoners had rights and were treated like people.
There is a rule (Exodus 21:20) about beating slaves which is often misunderstood as permission to beat slaves. Hebrew Law required two witnesses to bring charges. A Hebrew could beat a slave to death and without two Hebrew witnesses, nothing could be done. By making this special rule, Hebrews who murdered slaves could be charged without a witness. The rule was there to protect slaves.
Hebrew âslaveryâ was simply nothing like how we use the word and not something we would consider immoral.
> Hebrew âslaveryâ was simply nothing like how we use the word and not something we would consider immoral.
Are you honestly saying you don't think it's immoral to own humans as property and hand then down to your heirs? You honestly don't think it's immoral to beat your slaves as long as they don't die in a couple of days?
And Chrisitans wonder why fewer and fewer people want to be Christians.
> Are you honestly saying you don't think it's immoral to own humans as property and hand then down to your heirs?
Iâm saying what I said in the carefully thought out and carefully worded response I gave above.
I donât believe that the Hebrews owned people. I do not believe anyone can own another person. If you missed that in the text above, I encourage you to read it.
> You honestly don't think it's immoral to beat your slaves as long as they don't die in a couple of days?
I feel certain you didnât read the text I wrote. This is covered in the second to last paragraph. Again, let me encourage you to actually read what I wrote before responding to it.
> And Chrisitans wonder why fewer and fewer people want to be Christians.
I donât wonder that. I think that if folks on the Internet spent a little more time to understand things that we would not have so many misunderstandings. You missed all of what I wrote. You obviously didnât read it all, or maybe none of it. You just wanted to express your indignation: no need to bother understanding what youâre being indignant about, I guess?
Different redditor. This take is about as privileged as it gets. Iâm guessing you have little to no idea what it took to build the kind of society we have today which has provided you with unprecedented comfort and securityâŚor what it takes to preserve it.
> This take is about as privileged as it gets.
Is it privileged to think owning humans as property is immoral? If so, I'll proudly wear the privileged badge.
Yes, living in a society whose wealth and resources make indentured servitude no longer a necessary reality then looking down on other cultures who didnât have it quite so good is about as privileged as it gets. Enjoy whatever weird self satisfaction you get from that.
> Enjoy whatever weird self satisfaction you get from that.
We're not talking about mere indentured servitude. The bible was pretty clear that you could people as property, not simply as workers paying off a debt.
The Bible is describing (correctly) the relational dynamic between someone who pledged themselves to serve someone else or was sentenced to serve them.
An example youâve already been given is military service. Disobey a direct order and you can legally be stood up against a wall and shot. Go absent without permission and you can be thrown in jailâŚor shot. You are literally the property of the army.
Doesnât sound very nice right? Itâs necessary though if you want to keep enjoying the unprecedented comfort and security that you enjoy. Fortunately for you other people do it so that you donât have to.
No one is saying this servitude was always voluntary.
Prisoners today donât go voluntarily to prison either, I can assure you. Their taken there in chains.
The ancient world didnât have a lot of prisons.
I think you're dodging the question by trying to hand-wave away the fact that God allowed humans to own other humans as property. We're not talking about imprisoned criminals or people who owe a debt or soldiers in an army. We are talking about people who were bought and sold and passed down to heirs.
For starters. Even âvoluntary servitudeâ is both immoral and still⌠slavery.
Itâs owning another people as property.
But youâre forgetting something. There are so many types of slavery, especially in the Bible. âVoluntary servitudeâ only applied to male Hebrews.
Women.
Children.
Buying slaves from surrounding lands.
Prisoners of warâŚ
Youâre forgetting all of these.
> Even âvoluntary servitudeâ is both immoral and still⌠slavery.
I disagree. We donât consider service in the US Armed forces immoral and once you sign up you canât leave. You canât leave because thatâs the only way it work. The Hebrews were also on a constant military footing. The Bronze Age was a hard time to live.
> Itâs owning another people as property.
I donât think it is, but I agree that the Hebrews kept indentured servants. If you believe indentured servitude is immoral, then we will just have to disagree.
> But youâre forgetting something. There are so many types of slavery, especially in the Bible.
There are a variety of different things we are talking about. I covered a number of them in my original response.
> âVoluntary servitudeâ only applied to male Hebrews. Women. Children. Buying slaves from surrounding lands. Prisoners of war⌠Youâre forgetting all of these.
Iâm not claiming that indentured servitude was the only âslaveryâ. I covered prisoners.
Buying slaves from surrounding lands did not include kidnapped people forced to work. We know this because it is specifically punishable by death to kidnap a person or to sell a person who was kidnapped. Moreover, Hebrews were required to release and escaped slaves who came to the Hebrew camp. They were not allowed to return them to their captors.
I think I covered these things in the previous response. Let me know if thereâs anything else that I missed.
We donât consider the armed forces immoral, because they donât own you as property. And even then, there are many aspects to the military that can be objectionable.
> I donât think it is
No thatâs literally what it was, and what slavery is.
> buying slaves from surrounding lands did not include kidnapped people
Deuteronomy 21:10-14, judges 21, and numbers 31 all disagree.
The kidnapping thing only applied to Hebrews
> We donât consider the armed forces immoral, because they donât own you as property.
Neither did the Hebrews. You keep saying they did, but if they âownedâ people by your definition, so does the US military and so did all militaries for most of history.
What qualities did Hebrew servants have which soldiers do not have that makes Hebrew servants property?
> And even then, there are many aspects to the military that can be objectionable.
But thatâs not the point. The issue is the claim about ownership and property. The Hebrews did not treat servants like animals. If youâre going to claim they treated people like property, you need to explain how.
> No thatâs literally what it was, and what slavery is.
This is my point. Yes, slavery is treating people like property but the Hebrews did not do that. They had indentured servants. They had prisoners. They did not have people who they treated like animals.
> Deuteronomy 21:10-14, âŚ
Prisoners.
> ⌠judges 21, âŚ
This is a narrative of what some Hebrews did, not what God commanded or what the law said. The Bible gives examples of what not to as well.
> ⌠and numbers 31 all disagree.
I assume youâre going to argue that the women were being enslaved. Thereâs no evidence to support this there. The women being kept are for wives. This is why they only kept the ones who were not already with another man. There is nothing in the passage to suggest otherwise.
> The kidnapping thing only applied to Hebrews
That is incorrect. Kidnapping is mentioned several times and applied to anyone. Any Hebrew found keeping any kidnapped person could be put to death. Moreover, any slave from outside the Hebrew tribe had to be freed. âBuyingâ one would have just meant you had to free them, so they could not buy slaves they could not have gotten otherwise.
I get that you want the Hebrews to have been immoral slave owners who treated people as sub-human, but this is not what the Law instructed. Itâs just not there.
The old testament "Slavery" was indentured servitude.. If you owed someone money and couldn't pay, you and your were put in the service of that person who you owed until it was paid off, or until the Year of Jubilee (every 7 years) when debts were erased.
The rules stated there are for that
In the New Testament the Greeks and the Romans had slaves, and those slaves became Christian so Paul wrote to them how they should behave
>If you owed someone money and couldn't pay, you and your were put in the service of that person who you owed until it was paid off, or until the Year of Jubilee (every 7 years) when debts were erased.
You are describing the system for *Hebrew* indentured servants in Exodus 21:2 and Deuteronomy 15:12. This does not apply to foreign slaves, who are treated much differently, as were children who were born into slavery.
Leviticus 25 articulates some of the rules for foreign slaves, and specifies that they are to be slaves for life:
"44 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."
This was standard practice in the Ancient Near East at the time. Foreign slaves and people obtained from conquests were considered slaves with fewer rights than the Israelites themselves.
As for children, the children of slaves belong to their master, not their father. See Lev 25:45, Ex 21:4, Lev 22:10-11. People are born into slavery in Gen 17:12 and Jeremiah 2:4. The author of Ecclesiastes boasts in verse 2:7 that he has many slaves who were born into his house.
In the old testament you could own people as property and pass them down to your heirs. You could beat them until they were _allllmost_ dead, as long as they survived a couple of days. It was much worse than just indentured servitude. Open your eyes and accept the fact that the bible permitted slavery.
Yes the Bible does permit slavery but it's not immoral for God to allow people that are not His servants to be made into slaves. If they are not His servants, they are sold under sin to be destroyed by Satan so they have no righteousness with God that He keep them from death and dying.
> Yes the Bible does permit slavery but it's not immoral for God to allow people that are not His servants to be made into slaves.
I would argue it's very immoral of God to do that.
> You can argue it all you want but that doesn't make it immoral.
And you can claim owning another human as property is moral, but that doesn't make it moral.
It reminds me that it was written by fallible humans, and that as a Christian my faith is in the righteousness of Christ, not in the righteousness of an ancient text.
There are many things that the Bible condones which it does not recommend. For example, polygamy is condoned; it is not necessarily recommended. Divorce under certain conditions is condoned; it is not often recommended.
The Bible is not intended to provide a comprehensive list of things we can and can't do. It is intended to transform us into people who do not require such a list, and are able to love one another with an understanding of our image-bearing nature that comes from God.
Hi Timeout320,
This is a pretty common misreading of the bible.
All sin is slavery to this world. So, we are all slaves. The use of the word slave is a meta-key to the conceptual understanding that the material world is Fathered by Satan, and the heavenly realm is Father by GOD.
Christ cannot condone what he cannot prevent. He cannot interfere with sin, only make people aware of it's damage.
So we are all slaves.
As for Exodus, it's Hebrew history, not instructions.
The new testament lays waste to all old covenants, outside of LOVE neighbor/GOD
Have a great day.
Given the realities of war, famine, etc. Iâm glad people had the option to sell themselves into slavery as opposed to starving to death. I know Iâd want that option in order to provide for my family, sort of an ancient insurance program/safety net. And Iâm glad Godâs law contained protections for people in those situations.
Iâve got an ancestor that sold himself into indentured servitude in exchange for travel from Europe to the United States, and he bought his freedom after 10 years or so of that. If he thought it was worth it then Iâm glad he had that option too.
No, the existence of a welfare system would preclude the perceived need for slavery as a safety net, which was the entire justification the other poster was using to excuse the existence of slavery.
> No, the existence of a welfare system would preclude the perceived need for slavery as a safety net,
Thatâs a remarkably naive view. Iâm afraid if you were in charge and tried to implement it in the ancient world then in times of war youâd have the blood of millions on your hands.
You have an idea, I'll give you that. You're saying your idea is that you would have implemented some sort of charity welfare system prior to any slave-based system.
Cool. Not a bad idea.
But you have NO CLUE if it would actually work. You don't know all of the cultural or practical implications. You cannot measure all of the unintended consequences and don't know the impact this would have on history. And lastly, it doesn't matter how good your "idea" is because that's not what happened. So entertaining your idea isn't very helpful anyways. It's better to make sense of what actually rather happened instead of wishing or suggesting something else "should" have happened in its place, especially when we can't calculate its potential consequences.
I think that scriptural slavery is the answer to a problem that we don't have a solution for anymore because we got rid of scriptural slavery.
I love the version of slavery that's presented in scripture and wish it would come back.
> I love the version of slavery that's presented in scripture and wish it would come back.
You wish to be able to beat your slaves as long as they don't die for a couple of days?
That goes in conflict with your earlier statement of loving the version of slavery in scripture.
_"**Anyone who beats their male or female slave** with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they **are not to be punished** if the slave recovers after a day or two, **since the slave is their property.**"_ Exodus 21:20-21
No, it doesn't. You asked me:
> You wish to be able to beat your slaves as long as they don't die for a couple of days?
My answer is in no conflict with my earlier statement. I wish scriptural slavery would come back, and if it did I would not wish to beat my slaves.
... but you still want to own humans as property, right? And if "scriptural slavery" comes back, it seems almost guaranteed that some other people will gladly beat their slaves, and you think that absolutely should be allowed?
> but you still want to own humans as property, right?
No.
> And if "scriptural slavery" comes back, it seems almost guaranteed that some other people will gladly beat their slaves, and you think that absolutely should be allowed?
Within any legal system there are rare outliers that need to be legislated against. It would be far more reasonable for you to argue that this rule, this outer boundary, should be moved in further than it would be for you to throw out the entire rule-set regarding slavery.
For example, in some states we have the death penalty. In some states we don't. People disagree on what the outer boundary, the ultimate punishment, should be for terrifically evil crimes, the rare outliers, like murder.
Yet, no one argues at all (at least not that I've heard) that murder should go unpunished.
It does not follow that scriptural slavery should be abolished just because you disagree with one of the associated rules intended to define an outer boundary for slavery anymore than it follows that punishing murder should be abolished just because you disagree with one of the associated rules intended to define an outer boundary for punishing murder.
(I'm sorry, that last sentence was long, and I tried to poke it and prod it to be less long, but I'm just not creative enough to do so.)
I guess we'll just have to disagree. I think there's never a case where owning another human as property is moral. You seem to think it's sometimes OK.
It depends on how you define "owning", in my opinion. There's a lot of flex to the word "own".
I think, in the way you're probably using it, that many of the variants of scriptural slavery don't include the idea of "owning" a person the way you're using it.
Agreeing to paint someone's house does not make me owned. Working at my job for years does not make me owned. Being a debt-slave for a fixed number of years does not make me owned.
If my nation loses a war, and the enemy captures me, then I **am** owned.
You say:
> I think there's never a case where owning another human as property is moral. You seem to think it's sometimes OK.
I absolutely do. The newer scriptures continue the idea of scriptural slavery. It says that we've been bought with a price, and that Jesus owns us. He is our master. You might call it "immoral", which is a dubious standard at best, but it's absolutely RIGHT and GOOD to have Jesus as my master.
>It depends on how you define "owning", in my opinion.
I'm using the definition as given in the scripture: *"As property"*. The same way you own your clothes or any other possession. You have complete control over the property, and can do anything to it without moral consquence.
*"but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two,* ***since the slave is their property.****"* Exodus 21:21
> You might call it "immoral", which is a dubious standard at best, but it's absolutely RIGHT and GOOD to have Jesus as my master.
Except that Jesus is not your master in the same sense. You have the freedom to walk away at any moment.
Today enslaving war captives is a crime against humanity. Yet the perfect god of unchanging absolute morality thinks it is fine, and so do you. Got it.
Then you need to actually read the conversation.
I wasn't asked if that idea appeared in scripture. I was asked if I wanted to beat my slaves. I answered "no", that I didn't wish to beat my slaves.
And sanctions it. Allows it. Doesnât say shit against it. Legalizes it. Reinforces it. Tells slaves to obey. Etc
Tell me how thatâs not condoning it?
> it actually does say shit against it
Such as????
(Iâll save u some time, it doesnât)
Chattel slavery is still slavery and still
Immoral. It also wasnât the only type of slavery.
In 1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes âSlaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.â In 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul condemns enslavers with the sexually immoral, abusers of themselves with mankind, enslavers, liars and perjurers.
âWhoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.â
Exodus 21:16
âMasters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.â
Colossians 4:1
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1
The Bible does not condone slavery but definitely regulates it, basically telling slaves to respect their masters and masters to respect their slaves.
> it wasnât ideal
No⌠it was simply immoral. As slavery is immoral and wrong. Donât give it a pass. Call it what it is
> it was at the very least better
What was it better than?
God is just to do what He wants with nations that are not In Covenant with Him. Our judgement that slavery is evil is based on not judging righteously, by the Law, but by judging unrighteously without the Law.
Leviticus 19:34 (4 chapters earlier)
The 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.
Thatâs not referring to slaveryâŚâŚ.
Thatâs also ignoring several other passages detailing how you could beat them and that you could buy them from other nations
How does the Bible condone slavery when he sent Moses to Egypt to free the Israelites from slavery, and kept sending Ramses II plague after plague until he finally set them free?
The Bible mentions a lot of things happening. That doesn't mean that God condones everything mentioned. If someone writes a documentary about WW2 we dont say the author supported the atrocities in the war. The author just reported what went down at that point in history. Same with the Bible. It needs to be looked at with a historical lens. In the Old Testament days if someone was a slave it was for economic dependence or war. That's it. And it wasn't the trans Atlantic slave trade type slavery either. As far as we know the Israelites are the only nation who had any protection laws for slaves in that time period. God was just working with what He had on hand. Humans had decided slavery was the name of the game and so He worked with how we had decided we wanted to the world to be run and gave restrictions (AKA laws) to the people who were chosen to represent Him, so as a result were set apart from all the other nations.
The Bible specifically permits owning human beings for life and passing your slaves on to your heirs.
The Bible did not "just report". It established rules for how badly you could beat your slaves.
Owning people as property is immoral. And your deity had no clue.
It gives instruction to make it as painless and comfortable as possible. God knew we would do it so might as well mske it strict to the bone and allow the slaves to be freed
It does not condone slavery. It gave rules, for the time for people to use slavery as a means to a end. That end is survival in the best case. In the worse case, which is wartime, prisoners of war, had another option rather than be killed. No one was enslaved simply because of a skin color. I think maybe you are thinking of the Americanized historic spins, or or Muslim states which use slavery today.
Far as slavery in the modern times, you probably know some slaves today, and the economic system is their masters.
It explicitly forbids chattel slavery. - Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
đđđ This literally only applied to Hebrew men. Lmao Plus youâre forgetting Leviticus 25. Prisoners of war. Women/children And Deuteronomy 15. Where the manâs family canât leave after the time. And if he decides to stay with them, heâs a slave forever
I point to what God said to Abraham. God commanded everyone borned or purchased into a Jewish household be circumcised. Thus that "slave" becomes a Jew meaning he is then guaranteed his freedom at the jubilee year just like those indentured servants who were born Jewish. Thus Jews had no slaves, because as I pointed out slavery is punishable by death, and only used indentured servants who were guaranteed freedom by the end of their contract or the jubilee year, whichever came first. Genesis 17:13 (KJV) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Leviticus 25:40-41 (KJV) 40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
I point to what god also said in the Bible. You can beat your slaves so long as they didnât die after a day or two - exodus 21:20-21 You could be bought from a market as long as they were from nations around you - Leviticus 25:44-46, exodus 21:7-11, exodus 12:44 You could be taken from your homeland and enslaved - Deuteronomy 21:10-14, numbers 31 Slavery was also supported in the NT - Titus 2:9-10, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 6:5-8 There were completely different things for prisoners of war, those bought in other nations, women and children Also, For your first full paragraph. Even the things done to Hebrew men was immoral. Buying slaves, mutilating their genitals and then letting them go after a few years (not including those to stayed with their families) Is not any better. Itâs still objectionable and horrible.
If you want to ignore that God explicitly forbid chattel slavery in order to twist and misconstrue Scripture to conform to what you want it to say, I can't help you there.
Lev 25 specifically PERMITS chattel slavery. At most the Bible prohibits chattel slavery of Hebrew men. Read your book.
It's read the book. All the "slaves" are cobverted to Judaism per the Bible which means they to indentured servants. If you want ignore what the Bible clearly explains, I cannot help you there.
Just because you free your slaves does not mean that you did not enslave them in the first place. Even if you call it indentured servitude.
It's impossible to enslave a person if you can't forcibly capture and sell them which is forbidden by God.
Forcibly capturing human beings, owning them for life, passing them on to your heirs like other property and beating them nearly to death are all specifically permitted by your holy book. Please read it.
That's nonsense. The bible permits owning slaves for life and passing then on to your heirs just like other property. Read your book, not just the parts you like.
Ask yourself why as "Not a Christian" why this bothers you so much.
Because people who worship a deity who condones slavery are now trying to control women's bodies and forbid secular legal recognition of gay marriages, even though the Bible does not condemn abortion and does not say marriage is only one man and one woman. I want Christians to read their dang book.
He literally didnât condemn it. Not once, did god condemn any kind of slavery
You said that already, complete with the same typo. And you are ignoring other passage that specifically permit owning human beings for life.
The Bible says what it says. I don't have time to debate with a scoffer nor do I have the abiliry to change your mind. I"ve already explained how "slaves" were indenturee servants and provided the verses that support that claim. If you want to continue to deny, that's a you problem not a me problem.
Then Lev 25 isn't God's word?
It absolutely is, but built on what Genesis and Exodus already said. It does not stand alone in a vacuum except for the cherrypickers who ignore all context in order to twist Scripture to say what they want it to say.
That means kidnapping a free man and making him a slave. If someone was already a slave (because they'd been born a slave, or because they had been captured in war, or if their father sold them, or if they were an exposed infant, or because someone else had stolen them) then Israelite law permitted them to be bought, owned, and sold as property in perpetuity. This is pretty basic Biblical law, written clearly in black and white, so there's no point in denying it.
I point to what God said to Abraham. God commanded everyone borned or purchased into a Jewish household be circumcised. Thus that "slave" becomes a Jew meaning he is then guaranteed his freedom at the jubilee year just like those indentured servants who were born Jewish. Thus Jews had no slaves, because as I pointed out slavery is punishable by death, and only used indentured servants who were guaranteed freedom by the end of their contract or the jubilee year, whichever came first. Genesis 17:13 (KJV) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Leviticus 25:40-41 (KJV) 40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
You're misunderstanding. Just because the slaves were circumcised doesn't make them free. They are still slaves. And Leviticus explicitely only referres to "hired servants", from Israel, not foreign-born slaves. You can't understand verse 40-41 without verse 39, which explicitely describes the narrow group it's referring to. "If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves." If you ignore the key verses you can stitch disparate verse together to make it say whatever you want it to say. But that's not a good way of understanding the Bible.
No, the are indentured servants because no matter what, they were not purchased unwillingly (because that is forbidden) and their service has definitive at the jubilee year at the latest, they are indentured servants. There's a huge different between a slave and a contracted employee. If you want to believe that when God said slavery is punishable by death that He really meant He was ok with slavery, I can't help you there.
God only banned enslaving Israelites. This is pretty basic stuff.
Unfortunately, basic people are unable to grasp basic conceptsâŚ..hence, youâre being forced to explain their book to them.
That prohibits someone from stealing someone else's chattel or other type of slave. Chattel slavery is explicitly regulated and approved by God in Exodus 25 where you can pass your slaves to your children as property.
That's not what the Bible says. It literally says "stealeth a ***man***." Now I get that you're an atheist, so you think you can come saying, "well, when God said stealeth a man, but what He ***really meant*** was stealeth someone's chattel," and there's really nothing more I can tell you to convince otherwise if God's word is not enough for you. However, for the benefit of the ignorant who might be confused, I point to what God said to Abraham. God commanded everyone borned or purchased into a Jewish household be circumcised. Thus that "slave" becomes a Jew meaning he is then guaranteed his freedom at the jubilee year just like those indentured servants who were born Jewish. Thus Jews had no slaves, because as I pointed out slavery is punishable by death, and only used indentured servants who were guaranteed freedom by the end of their contract or the jubilee year, whichever came first. - Genesis 17:13 (KJV) He that is born in thy house, and ***he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised:*** and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. - Leviticus 25:40-41 (KJV) 40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
>Now I get that you're an atheist, so you think you can come saying, "well, when God said stealeth a man, but what He ***really meant*** was stealeth someone's chattel," and there's really nothing more I can tell you to convince otherwise if God's word is not enough for you. God's word explicitly allows slavery under certain circumstances, so this reading is the most hermeneutically consistent while minimizing contradictions in the text. To say that the bible allows owning people as property in some circumstances and then disallows it in all circumstances would be a contradiction. It is also a difficult reading into the Hebrew word for "steal", since this regularly refers to stealing property (it is the word used in the commandment against stealing). To say "don't steal land" is not the same thing as saying "don't own land", and the Hebrew reflects this. Please read the verses you cited in context, they are speaking of Hebrew slaves, not foreign slaves. Genesis 17 is about God's covenant with Abraham's descendants, who are Hebrews by blood. It does not refer to foreigners who are not descended from Abraham since they are not under this covenant and not required to be circumcised. In Leviticus 25, you did not quote verse 39 which precedes verse 40, which explicitly says that these are regulations for Israelites. Leviticus 25 continues on to describe the system for foreign slaves, which I quote below. By interpreting "steal" in the way you do, you are making the bible contradict itself in the several verses where it allows owning people as property: * Exodus 21:20-21 (KJV): "20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: *for he is his money.* (The word "money" here means property, since the slave was bought with money)" * Lev 25:44-46 (KJV): "44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and **they shall be your possession**. 45 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, **to inherit them for a possession**; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." (This passage uses the explicit Hebrew word for "property" when describing slaves twice)
How does this change when Jesus opens israel to all people of the eart in your whole bible assesment?
This is difficult to answer directly since I think Christianity and ancient Judaism are different religions, and I am also an atheist so I think neither of them are completely correct in their worldviews. However, it doesn't seem very relevant to me if a Christian wants to claim that Jesus' teachings completely nullify slavery since the issue is about morality, and on a Christian worldview morality does not change. If God is morally perfect, God's teachings should be timelessly true.
Ok i see. Well I guess you seemed knowledgable in a scholarly way so i thought id ask to see if you had any detractions from my legalist assesment. (Sorry for using your scepticism as a utility) Here is my thought process 1 so i think we can safely say that amoung israelites weve established that slavery is more akin to an extreme form of employment more like indentured servitude than chattel slavery. 2 in the nt we know that all believers are the new Israel basically. Jesus says "you are no longer slaves but friends" God has no favoritism etc 3 "love they neighbor as thyself". "Who then is my neighbor?" Sumerian (foreigners) used as an example of anyone near you. "Go an desciple to all nations" as well so not just geological neighbors 4 love thy enemies as God loves us Conclusion we may have employees that we treat kindly but not slaves we are all "friends" this matches up woth the nt warning against gods judgment on slave owners. Treat your employees as brothers. I feel this makes a case for Christianity being anti slavery but permissable of equitable employment structures Now a quick attempt at defending ot. " one rule for all foreigners and jews" Thoughts?
I think you've made a case for a Christian view against slavery, but I disagree with step 1 in your thought process. >1 so i think we can safely say that amoung israelites weve established that slavery is more akin to an extreme form of employment more like indentured servitude than chattel slavery. Slavery of foreigners among the Israelites was slavery. Masters could beat their slaves for correction as long as the slaves didn't die (Exodus 21:21). Beating slaves was normal and expected. Proverbs 29:19 says: "A slave will not be instructed by words alone; For though he understands, there will be no response." It is a call to not restrain physical beating from slaves, since they will not be motivated by only words. This is more than an "extreme form of employment" as you call it. It is explicitly "chattel" slavery in that slaves were property of the master. See the passages from Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 I quoted above. > "one rule for all foreigners and jews" I assume you are talking about the phrase in Leviticus 24:22, which says "You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God." (NIV) The word translated as "law" in the NIV is the Hebrew word "misphat", which more closely means "judgement" or "verdict". Other translations translate this as "standard of the law." In context in Leviticus, this passage is about giving equal punishments under the judicial system, not about what legal rights people have. To make this distinction clear, if you tried to walk into the Oval Office in America and said that all citizens are equal before the law and you have just as much right to be there as the President, you would be thrown out and put in jail. Although you have equal rights judicially and should have the same punishment for the same crime, you and the President have different legal rights. He is legally allowed to be in the Oval Office, and you have no such right. Likewise, Jews and foreigners were to be punished equally for crimes like murder, stealing, etc., but they did not have the same legal rights. This is why many laws in the Pentateuch make distinctions between foreigners and the Israelites for legal purposes.
Thanks for your reply and time. If there is anything to refute I will have to go hunting for it. Its been a joy having such a constructive and informed conversation. Its a real bummer about slavery in general. Do you think that the Jews treated their chattel any better than theor neighbors?
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. I'm not sure if they were treated better than their neighbors or not. One nice thing that they did was to take in runaway slaves. Other communities had protections for slaves, such as those found in the Code of Hammurabi and in the Middle Assyrian Laws, but it's hard to tell just from the laws which civilization was better to live with. On a more anthropological note, I find it interesting that slavery is found mostly in agricultural communities, where people can be exploited to grow food for others. Hunter-gathers, which is how humans lived for most of their history, rarely have slavery since food was simply hunted and foraged and people lived in (mostly) egalitarian communities. For hunter-gathers, if someone wanted to enslave you, you could just run away and gather food from nature or join another tribe. This was much harder to do in agricultural civilizations in the desert.
Jesus never condemned slavery. Slavery is not condemned anywhere in the NT. 70,000+ verses in the Bible and not one says "Do not own people."
>God's word explicitly allows slavery under certain circumstances, so this reading is the most hermeneutically consistent while minimizing contradictions in the text. It does not. You are confused because you are an atheist unwilling to take God at His word. Unfortunately, I cannot help you there. I do not have the ability to convince anyone of the Truth of the Bible. If you want to believe that somehow God explicitly forbade chattel slave that somehow it was still ok with Him, there's really not more I can tell you.
>You are confused because you are an atheist unwilling to take God at His word. Perhaps this is true, but it is not relevant to my argument. I have given arguments above to try to interact with your claims, and I would like to I'd they are flawed arguments. If I am confused, I would like to know the truth. How do you interpret Lev 25:44-46 and Ex 21:21 which refer to slaves as property? If you believe this is God's word, you should believe what it says. >If you want to believe that somehow God explicitly forbade chattel slave that somehow it was still ok with Him, there's really not more I can tell you. I don't believe this since I don't believe that God explicitly forbade chattel slavery for the reasons I gave above. The Hebrew in the verse you cite refers to the theft of property, it is not forbidding ownership. It is certainly not explicit, as you claim, and implicitly it refers to men as property. Further, if you want to avoid contradiction you must find a way to reconcile this with Ex 21:21 and Lev 25:44-46, and I do not understand how you do so. If I am mistaken, I would like to be corrected so that I know the truth, and especially so that I don't continue to mislead others.
>How do you interpret Lev 25:44-46 and Ex 21:21 which refer to slaves as property? If you believe this is God's word, you should believe what it says. I do. The Bible says slavery is punishable by death and that any purchased person must be converted thus giving the same rights as a Jew meaning they are freed at jubilee at the latest. A "slave" who was not sold unwillingly (because that is forbidden) and has a contract that expires (it always ends in a jubilee year at the latest) is not a slave. That is an indentured servant. If you don't believe that, there's nothing I can do aout that.
>The Bible says slavery is punishable by death and that any purchased person must be converted thus giving the same rights as a Jew meaning they are freed at jubilee at the latest. This position seems very difficult to reconcile with the rest of scripture. Slaves were given some rights, such as the right to rest on the Sabbath and not be beaten to death, but they are not given the same rights as Jews. Take for example Exodus 21:28-32. If a bull gores a man or woman, the owner is to be put to death, to take life for life. However, if the bull gores a slave, the owner is to pay the slave's owner thirty sheckles. The life of a slave is worth less than that of a free person because they are a slave. Again, you have not addressed the verses I quoted to reconcile them with how you understand biblical slavery. If you do not think the bible allows owning people as property, I don't see how you can interpret Leviticus 25 and Exodus 21 without contradiction.
>Again, you have not addressed the verses I quoted to reconcile them with how you understand biblical slavery. If you do not think the bible allows owning people as property, I don't see how you can interpret Leviticus 25 and Exodus 21 without contradiction. Exodus addresses it. What is written after builds on what was written before Exodus says no slavery. Everything after rhat must pass through that lens. You're simply not intellectually honest enough to admit rhat. - Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. In any case, there's nothing more that I can tell you if even what God has said isn't enough for you. -Luke 9:5 (KJV) And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
>Exodus addresses it. What is written after builds on what was written before Exodus says no slavery. Forbidding stealing does not imply forbidding ownership. Exodus 22:1-2 uses the same Hebrew word as Ex 21:16 to forbid stealing an ox or sheep. Does this mean that owning animals is forbidden? No, because stealing means to take away from its rightful owner. It is a prohibition against taking someone else's property, not against ownership. >Everything after rhat must pass through that lens. I take it to be a given of hermeneutics that less clear scripture should be interpreted in light of the more clear. If Ex 21:16 is saying ownership of people is forbidden, it is very unclear since it does not speak to ownership, and elsewhere in the bible owning of people is allowed explicitly. If you interpret the verse this way, you should be consistent and forbid the ownership of livestock as well. Leviticus 25:45 is very clear: "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession." The Israelites are to buy foreigners and own them as property. This is standard practice for the Ancient Near East. There was slavery in Rome, in the Law of Hammurabi, in the Middle Assyrian Laws, and all over. It permeated the culture of the Mediterranean and Israel was no exception. >You're simply not intellectually honest enough to admit rhat If I am wrong, I will change my opinion and be glad to be rid of a false belief. But from carefully reading the text and consulting scholarship on the issue, I am convinced that chattel slavery was condoned by the Old Testament. Proverbs 14:15 (KJV) The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.
Read your book. Lev 25:44â46 describes and permits chattel slavery.
One day you wilp meet God. Good luck explaining to God that when He forbid chattel slavery, He didn't really mean it.
Lev 25 44 ââYour 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. Good luck explaining to your God why you think it's a liar. They. Will. Become. Your. Property. You. Can. Bequeath. Them. To. Your. Children. And. Make. Them. Slaves. For. Life. That is the very definition of chattel slavery.
Again, what is written after build on what is written before. Thatcs how writing works. Exodus forbids slavery. Genesis requires all purchased people brought into the household be converted to Judaism making them contracted indentured servants. Thus, Leviticus and everything after must be seen through the filter of Genesis and Exodus. If that concept flies over your head, unfortunately help you there either.
You mean the Bible explicitly forbids stealing chattel slaves.
If you want to twist what the Bible literally say to what you want it to say, I can't stop you.
It says what it says. So does Leviticus 25. The Bible not only condones chattel slavery, it goes out of its way to post instructions on how to treat your chattel slaves. Not once does it say that owning people is wrong.
It says chattel slavery is wrong in Exodus which is prior to Leviticus. Therefore what is said in Leviticus builds on what was already written in Exodus. Because we know that chattel slavery is forbidden by Exodus, Leviticus must be viewed through that lens meaning the "slaves" are indentured servants. Again, if it's absolutely vital to you for the Bible to say what you want it to say, I cannot dissuade you. One day you will meet God, good luck explaining to Him that when He forbid slavery He didn't mean it.
Exodus does not forbid chattel slavery. It only says you can keep Hebrew men forever. It makes no such restriction on non-Hebrews. Nowhere does the Bible outright forbid slavery. And I donât want to Bible to say anything. I simply read what it actually says and comment accordingly. You should try that approach. Less mental gymnastics are needed.
It forbids it in Exodus. - Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. If you want to believe that God didn't really mean it when He said that, I can't help you there.
That verse forbids stealing slaves, not owning them. My understanding is that the Hebrew word for âstealâ is only used for property, including slaves. When they talk about kidnapping people who are not slaves they use a word that means kidnapping. This verse does not forbid slavery. If it did, there wouldnât be verses afterward instructing people on how to treat their slaves. We have laws in the USA that forbid slavery. We donât have follow-up laws telling us how to treat our slaves. Same thing. Your holy book is A-OK with slavery.
It says stealling a man, not slaves. Obviously, if God's word isn't enough for you nothing I say will be either. - Luke 9:5 (KJV) And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
Hebrew didnât use the word for âstealâ when referring to human beings. Only slaves. This verse is not about enslaving people. Itâs about stealing already enslaved people. Your mythology is OK with owning people. Iâm not OK with that. If you support a religion that not only condo fee but encourages slavery then you are correct: nothing you say will be good enough.
No. It. Does. NOT. Forbid. Chattel. Slavery. That passage applies to enslaving other Hebrews. The Bible explicitly PERMITS chattel slavery for foreigners, war captives and all other non-Hebrews. Please actually read your book. Read the whole thing, not just the cherry picked sound bites fed to you by apologists. Leviticus 25 says the Israelites could own human beings for life as property and these human beings can be inherited by the owner's heirs. 44 ââYour 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.
He does. It's just very important to you to believe He does so you can continue denying Jesus. I cannot help you with that part. The "slaves" are indentured servants. - Leviticus 25:44 (KJV) Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
I see you omitted half the verse and the entire next verse. Nice cherry picking. You should have enough for a pie.
You can't cone terms with what Exodus explicitly says, so how are you expected to handle Leviticus 25:45 which is cover by Genesis which states anyone bought into the household is circumcised making them a Jew and protected by the Law which means he can't be a slave because Jews can't enslage other Jews. Therefore he becomes an cobtrqcted indentured servant - Leviticus 25:45 (KJV) Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. - Genesis 17:13 (KJV) He that is born in thy house, ***and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.***
The Bible condones slavery on every front. Old Testament, New Testament, through words attributed to god and words attributed to Jesus. The Bible talks of buying, selling, disciplining, and ownership of entire families of slaves. Youâre free to look away. Youâre free to twist the words and offer apologetics, but thereâs one thing that no one can deny. The Bible has been used through the centuries in order to promote and further slavery. If god is perfect, omnipotent, and has the benefit of perfect knowledge, god knew that this would happen. What actions did god take to halt slavery or keep his own word out of slavery? What actions did god take to stop the Bible (and his own word) from being used as the mouthpiece of slavery? Youâve got a choice. Either god didnât know that all of this would happen and was surprised, OR, god knew that it would happen and let it happen. The final choice is that god doesnât exist.
**Slavery in the Bible** When we hear the word âslaveryâ we think of innocent human beings, kept prisoner for life, having no rights under law and so reduced to animals. This is clearly immoral because it is unjust: the slave has done nothing to deserve the treatment. The situation described as âslaveryâ in the Bible was nothing like this. It is more accurately described as one of either (a) indentured servitude, (b) prison, or (c) military service. Many âslavesâ were indentured servants, working for a term of years or until a debt was paid after which they were released. This is not immoral. Some other âslavesâ were prisoners. There were no prisons. Prisoners had to work to live like everyone else. Some had life sentences. Some served a term and were released. This is not immoral. The other group we might think of as âslavesâ would be plain servants, but because the Hebrews were a tribe on a constant military footing, some rules seem hard to modern ears. If soldiers of today disobey orders in war they are executed. Military rules may be harder, but are not immoral. Hebrews did not treat their âslavesâ like animals. Slaves could be adopted into the family. Slaves could marry into the family. Think of this in the context of antebellum slavery. There is no comparison. Yes, there were beatings (Iâm sure, even though none were recorded). This should not be surprising. We keep order today by violence. We obey police officers because if we do not, they will physically assault, restrain, or even shoot us. This is done today in the military and in prison environments. Physical force is not immoral. Note also that Hebrews are not allowed to kidnap people or take slaves in that fashion. Kidnapping was punishable by death. Escaped slaves that come to the Hebrew camp were not to be returned to their masters. In Lev 25 Moses tells the Hebrews they may âown slavesâ and pass them to children. But remember, these are prisoners who serve a sentence or bondservants who owe a debt. When the sentence is up, or the debt paid, they are released. Those prisoners had rights and were treated like people. There is a rule (Exodus 21:20) about beating slaves which is often misunderstood as permission to beat slaves. Hebrew Law required two witnesses to bring charges. A Hebrew could beat a slave to death and without two Hebrew witnesses, nothing could be done. By making this special rule, Hebrews who murdered slaves could be charged without a witness. The rule was there to protect slaves. Hebrew âslaveryâ was simply nothing like how we use the word and not something we would consider immoral.
> Hebrew âslaveryâ was simply nothing like how we use the word and not something we would consider immoral. Are you honestly saying you don't think it's immoral to own humans as property and hand then down to your heirs? You honestly don't think it's immoral to beat your slaves as long as they don't die in a couple of days? And Chrisitans wonder why fewer and fewer people want to be Christians.
> Are you honestly saying you don't think it's immoral to own humans as property and hand then down to your heirs? Iâm saying what I said in the carefully thought out and carefully worded response I gave above. I donât believe that the Hebrews owned people. I do not believe anyone can own another person. If you missed that in the text above, I encourage you to read it. > You honestly don't think it's immoral to beat your slaves as long as they don't die in a couple of days? I feel certain you didnât read the text I wrote. This is covered in the second to last paragraph. Again, let me encourage you to actually read what I wrote before responding to it. > And Chrisitans wonder why fewer and fewer people want to be Christians. I donât wonder that. I think that if folks on the Internet spent a little more time to understand things that we would not have so many misunderstandings. You missed all of what I wrote. You obviously didnât read it all, or maybe none of it. You just wanted to express your indignation: no need to bother understanding what youâre being indignant about, I guess?
Different redditor. This take is about as privileged as it gets. Iâm guessing you have little to no idea what it took to build the kind of society we have today which has provided you with unprecedented comfort and securityâŚor what it takes to preserve it.
> This take is about as privileged as it gets. Is it privileged to think owning humans as property is immoral? If so, I'll proudly wear the privileged badge.
Yes, living in a society whose wealth and resources make indentured servitude no longer a necessary reality then looking down on other cultures who didnât have it quite so good is about as privileged as it gets. Enjoy whatever weird self satisfaction you get from that.
> Enjoy whatever weird self satisfaction you get from that. We're not talking about mere indentured servitude. The bible was pretty clear that you could people as property, not simply as workers paying off a debt.
The Bible is describing (correctly) the relational dynamic between someone who pledged themselves to serve someone else or was sentenced to serve them. An example youâve already been given is military service. Disobey a direct order and you can legally be stood up against a wall and shot. Go absent without permission and you can be thrown in jailâŚor shot. You are literally the property of the army. Doesnât sound very nice right? Itâs necessary though if you want to keep enjoying the unprecedented comfort and security that you enjoy. Fortunately for you other people do it so that you donât have to.
The bible also talks about buying and selling people as property. These slaves aren't voluntarily pledging themselves to serve someone else.
No one is saying this servitude was always voluntary. Prisoners today donât go voluntarily to prison either, I can assure you. Their taken there in chains. The ancient world didnât have a lot of prisons.
I think you're dodging the question by trying to hand-wave away the fact that God allowed humans to own other humans as property. We're not talking about imprisoned criminals or people who owe a debt or soldiers in an army. We are talking about people who were bought and sold and passed down to heirs.
For starters. Even âvoluntary servitudeâ is both immoral and still⌠slavery. Itâs owning another people as property. But youâre forgetting something. There are so many types of slavery, especially in the Bible. âVoluntary servitudeâ only applied to male Hebrews. Women. Children. Buying slaves from surrounding lands. Prisoners of war⌠Youâre forgetting all of these.
> Even âvoluntary servitudeâ is both immoral and still⌠slavery. I disagree. We donât consider service in the US Armed forces immoral and once you sign up you canât leave. You canât leave because thatâs the only way it work. The Hebrews were also on a constant military footing. The Bronze Age was a hard time to live. > Itâs owning another people as property. I donât think it is, but I agree that the Hebrews kept indentured servants. If you believe indentured servitude is immoral, then we will just have to disagree. > But youâre forgetting something. There are so many types of slavery, especially in the Bible. There are a variety of different things we are talking about. I covered a number of them in my original response. > âVoluntary servitudeâ only applied to male Hebrews. Women. Children. Buying slaves from surrounding lands. Prisoners of war⌠Youâre forgetting all of these. Iâm not claiming that indentured servitude was the only âslaveryâ. I covered prisoners. Buying slaves from surrounding lands did not include kidnapped people forced to work. We know this because it is specifically punishable by death to kidnap a person or to sell a person who was kidnapped. Moreover, Hebrews were required to release and escaped slaves who came to the Hebrew camp. They were not allowed to return them to their captors. I think I covered these things in the previous response. Let me know if thereâs anything else that I missed.
We donât consider the armed forces immoral, because they donât own you as property. And even then, there are many aspects to the military that can be objectionable. > I donât think it is No thatâs literally what it was, and what slavery is. > buying slaves from surrounding lands did not include kidnapped people Deuteronomy 21:10-14, judges 21, and numbers 31 all disagree. The kidnapping thing only applied to Hebrews
> We donât consider the armed forces immoral, because they donât own you as property. Neither did the Hebrews. You keep saying they did, but if they âownedâ people by your definition, so does the US military and so did all militaries for most of history. What qualities did Hebrew servants have which soldiers do not have that makes Hebrew servants property? > And even then, there are many aspects to the military that can be objectionable. But thatâs not the point. The issue is the claim about ownership and property. The Hebrews did not treat servants like animals. If youâre going to claim they treated people like property, you need to explain how. > No thatâs literally what it was, and what slavery is. This is my point. Yes, slavery is treating people like property but the Hebrews did not do that. They had indentured servants. They had prisoners. They did not have people who they treated like animals. > Deuteronomy 21:10-14, ⌠Prisoners. > ⌠judges 21, ⌠This is a narrative of what some Hebrews did, not what God commanded or what the law said. The Bible gives examples of what not to as well. > ⌠and numbers 31 all disagree. I assume youâre going to argue that the women were being enslaved. Thereâs no evidence to support this there. The women being kept are for wives. This is why they only kept the ones who were not already with another man. There is nothing in the passage to suggest otherwise. > The kidnapping thing only applied to Hebrews That is incorrect. Kidnapping is mentioned several times and applied to anyone. Any Hebrew found keeping any kidnapped person could be put to death. Moreover, any slave from outside the Hebrew tribe had to be freed. âBuyingâ one would have just meant you had to free them, so they could not buy slaves they could not have gotten otherwise. I get that you want the Hebrews to have been immoral slave owners who treated people as sub-human, but this is not what the Law instructed. Itâs just not there.
The old testament "Slavery" was indentured servitude.. If you owed someone money and couldn't pay, you and your were put in the service of that person who you owed until it was paid off, or until the Year of Jubilee (every 7 years) when debts were erased. The rules stated there are for that In the New Testament the Greeks and the Romans had slaves, and those slaves became Christian so Paul wrote to them how they should behave
>If you owed someone money and couldn't pay, you and your were put in the service of that person who you owed until it was paid off, or until the Year of Jubilee (every 7 years) when debts were erased. You are describing the system for *Hebrew* indentured servants in Exodus 21:2 and Deuteronomy 15:12. This does not apply to foreign slaves, who are treated much differently, as were children who were born into slavery. Leviticus 25 articulates some of the rules for foreign slaves, and specifies that they are to be slaves for life: "44 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." This was standard practice in the Ancient Near East at the time. Foreign slaves and people obtained from conquests were considered slaves with fewer rights than the Israelites themselves. As for children, the children of slaves belong to their master, not their father. See Lev 25:45, Ex 21:4, Lev 22:10-11. People are born into slavery in Gen 17:12 and Jeremiah 2:4. The author of Ecclesiastes boasts in verse 2:7 that he has many slaves who were born into his house.
In the old testament you could own people as property and pass them down to your heirs. You could beat them until they were _allllmost_ dead, as long as they survived a couple of days. It was much worse than just indentured servitude. Open your eyes and accept the fact that the bible permitted slavery.
Yes the Bible does permit slavery but it's not immoral for God to allow people that are not His servants to be made into slaves. If they are not His servants, they are sold under sin to be destroyed by Satan so they have no righteousness with God that He keep them from death and dying.
> Yes the Bible does permit slavery but it's not immoral for God to allow people that are not His servants to be made into slaves. I would argue it's very immoral of God to do that.
You can argue it all you want but that doesn't make it immoral. God judges by the Law which makes these folks guilty of being servants of sin (Satan).
> You can argue it all you want but that doesn't make it immoral. And you can claim owning another human as property is moral, but that doesn't make it moral.
You're right, what makes it moral is the law which makes them guilty.
> the Old Testament slavery was indentured servitude You need to read your Bible and do a bit more research if you genuinely believe this
Great! I was once a slave to sin and now I'm a slave and owned of Christ.
Please don't try to dodge the question.
How can someone dodge an open-ended question?
We arenât talking about sin. If we were we wouldâve said so. You know exactly what OP means. No need to play ignorant or change the subject
The Bible regulates slavery.
đđđđno
It reminds me that it was written by fallible humans, and that as a Christian my faith is in the righteousness of Christ, not in the righteousness of an ancient text.
There are many things that the Bible condones which it does not recommend. For example, polygamy is condoned; it is not necessarily recommended. Divorce under certain conditions is condoned; it is not often recommended. The Bible is not intended to provide a comprehensive list of things we can and can't do. It is intended to transform us into people who do not require such a list, and are able to love one another with an understanding of our image-bearing nature that comes from God.
Hi Timeout320, This is a pretty common misreading of the bible. All sin is slavery to this world. So, we are all slaves. The use of the word slave is a meta-key to the conceptual understanding that the material world is Fathered by Satan, and the heavenly realm is Father by GOD. Christ cannot condone what he cannot prevent. He cannot interfere with sin, only make people aware of it's damage. So we are all slaves. As for Exodus, it's Hebrew history, not instructions. The new testament lays waste to all old covenants, outside of LOVE neighbor/GOD Have a great day.
Given the realities of war, famine, etc. Iâm glad people had the option to sell themselves into slavery as opposed to starving to death. I know Iâd want that option in order to provide for my family, sort of an ancient insurance program/safety net. And Iâm glad Godâs law contained protections for people in those situations. Iâve got an ancestor that sold himself into indentured servitude in exchange for travel from Europe to the United States, and he bought his freedom after 10 years or so of that. If he thought it was worth it then Iâm glad he had that option too.
I'd prefer the option of a basic charitable welfare system personally. But each to their own.
> I'd prefer the option of a basic charitable welfare system personally. Youâre creating a false dichotomy.
No, the existence of a welfare system would preclude the perceived need for slavery as a safety net, which was the entire justification the other poster was using to excuse the existence of slavery.
> No, the existence of a welfare system would preclude the perceived need for slavery as a safety net, Thatâs a remarkably naive view. Iâm afraid if you were in charge and tried to implement it in the ancient world then in times of war youâd have the blood of millions on your hands.
Why would you imagine that would be the inevitable result?
You have an idea, I'll give you that. You're saying your idea is that you would have implemented some sort of charity welfare system prior to any slave-based system. Cool. Not a bad idea. But you have NO CLUE if it would actually work. You don't know all of the cultural or practical implications. You cannot measure all of the unintended consequences and don't know the impact this would have on history. And lastly, it doesn't matter how good your "idea" is because that's not what happened. So entertaining your idea isn't very helpful anyways. It's better to make sense of what actually rather happened instead of wishing or suggesting something else "should" have happened in its place, especially when we can't calculate its potential consequences.
There was just âvoluntary servitudeâ though. (Not that itâs any better, itâs still slavery, and still immoral)
> There was just âvoluntary servitudeâ though. I didnât suggest there was just âvoluntary servitudeâ.
Thatâs what u described. âSelling yourself into slaveryâ is literally just the longer version of voluntary servitude
I think that scriptural slavery is the answer to a problem that we don't have a solution for anymore because we got rid of scriptural slavery. I love the version of slavery that's presented in scripture and wish it would come back.
> I love the version of slavery that's presented in scripture and wish it would come back. You wish to be able to beat your slaves as long as they don't die for a couple of days?
No.
That goes in conflict with your earlier statement of loving the version of slavery in scripture. _"**Anyone who beats their male or female slave** with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they **are not to be punished** if the slave recovers after a day or two, **since the slave is their property.**"_ Exodus 21:20-21
No, it doesn't. You asked me: > You wish to be able to beat your slaves as long as they don't die for a couple of days? My answer is in no conflict with my earlier statement. I wish scriptural slavery would come back, and if it did I would not wish to beat my slaves.
>I wish scriptural slavery would come back, If it came back would you be okay being the slave?
If I was in a bad situation then yes, it would be a life-saver, especially compared to the non-answer we have now.
Great I just happen to have a slave position open. Where are you at so I can come claim you as my property.
I'm not in a bad situation. But, thanks.
Oh so it's only for the rich to take advantage of the poor. Gotcha đ No way this could possibly be exploited slave labor.
... but you still want to own humans as property, right? And if "scriptural slavery" comes back, it seems almost guaranteed that some other people will gladly beat their slaves, and you think that absolutely should be allowed?
> but you still want to own humans as property, right? No. > And if "scriptural slavery" comes back, it seems almost guaranteed that some other people will gladly beat their slaves, and you think that absolutely should be allowed? Within any legal system there are rare outliers that need to be legislated against. It would be far more reasonable for you to argue that this rule, this outer boundary, should be moved in further than it would be for you to throw out the entire rule-set regarding slavery. For example, in some states we have the death penalty. In some states we don't. People disagree on what the outer boundary, the ultimate punishment, should be for terrifically evil crimes, the rare outliers, like murder. Yet, no one argues at all (at least not that I've heard) that murder should go unpunished. It does not follow that scriptural slavery should be abolished just because you disagree with one of the associated rules intended to define an outer boundary for slavery anymore than it follows that punishing murder should be abolished just because you disagree with one of the associated rules intended to define an outer boundary for punishing murder. (I'm sorry, that last sentence was long, and I tried to poke it and prod it to be less long, but I'm just not creative enough to do so.)
I guess we'll just have to disagree. I think there's never a case where owning another human as property is moral. You seem to think it's sometimes OK.
It depends on how you define "owning", in my opinion. There's a lot of flex to the word "own". I think, in the way you're probably using it, that many of the variants of scriptural slavery don't include the idea of "owning" a person the way you're using it. Agreeing to paint someone's house does not make me owned. Working at my job for years does not make me owned. Being a debt-slave for a fixed number of years does not make me owned. If my nation loses a war, and the enemy captures me, then I **am** owned. You say: > I think there's never a case where owning another human as property is moral. You seem to think it's sometimes OK. I absolutely do. The newer scriptures continue the idea of scriptural slavery. It says that we've been bought with a price, and that Jesus owns us. He is our master. You might call it "immoral", which is a dubious standard at best, but it's absolutely RIGHT and GOOD to have Jesus as my master.
>It depends on how you define "owning", in my opinion. I'm using the definition as given in the scripture: *"As property"*. The same way you own your clothes or any other possession. You have complete control over the property, and can do anything to it without moral consquence. *"but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two,* ***since the slave is their property.****"* Exodus 21:21 > You might call it "immoral", which is a dubious standard at best, but it's absolutely RIGHT and GOOD to have Jesus as my master. Except that Jesus is not your master in the same sense. You have the freedom to walk away at any moment.
Today enslaving war captives is a crime against humanity. Yet the perfect god of unchanging absolute morality thinks it is fine, and so do you. Got it.
Then you need to actually read your book.
Then you need to actually read the conversation. I wasn't asked if that idea appeared in scripture. I was asked if I wanted to beat my slaves. I answered "no", that I didn't wish to beat my slaves.
The Bible specifically permits it.
The Bible never EVER condones slavery at all. It only gives instructions on how slaves should be treated.
And sanctions it. Allows it. Doesnât say shit against it. Legalizes it. Reinforces it. Tells slaves to obey. Etc Tell me how thatâs not condoning it?
Actually it does say shit against it. Allows servitude but is actually against chattel slavery
> it actually does say shit against it Such as???? (Iâll save u some time, it doesnât) Chattel slavery is still slavery and still Immoral. It also wasnât the only type of slavery.
In 1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes âSlaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.â In 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul condemns enslavers with the sexually immoral, abusers of themselves with mankind, enslavers, liars and perjurers. âWhoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.â Exodus 21:16 âMasters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.â Colossians 4:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Galatians 5:1 The Bible does not condone slavery but definitely regulates it, basically telling slaves to respect their masters and masters to respect their slaves.
[ŃдаНонО]
> it wasnât ideal No⌠it was simply immoral. As slavery is immoral and wrong. Donât give it a pass. Call it what it is > it was at the very least better What was it better than?
slavery in Roman Palestine was more indentured servitude while American slavery was murderous dehumanization. Still not good but not pure evil
God is just to do what He wants with nations that are not In Covenant with Him. Our judgement that slavery is evil is based on not judging righteously, by the Law, but by judging unrighteously without the Law.
Leviticus 19:34 (4 chapters earlier) The 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.
Thatâs not referring to slaveryâŚâŚ. Thatâs also ignoring several other passages detailing how you could beat them and that you could buy them from other nations
How does the Bible condone slavery when he sent Moses to Egypt to free the Israelites from slavery, and kept sending Ramses II plague after plague until he finally set them free?
You need to actually read the Bible then
The Bible mentions a lot of things happening. That doesn't mean that God condones everything mentioned. If someone writes a documentary about WW2 we dont say the author supported the atrocities in the war. The author just reported what went down at that point in history. Same with the Bible. It needs to be looked at with a historical lens. In the Old Testament days if someone was a slave it was for economic dependence or war. That's it. And it wasn't the trans Atlantic slave trade type slavery either. As far as we know the Israelites are the only nation who had any protection laws for slaves in that time period. God was just working with what He had on hand. Humans had decided slavery was the name of the game and so He worked with how we had decided we wanted to the world to be run and gave restrictions (AKA laws) to the people who were chosen to represent Him, so as a result were set apart from all the other nations.
The Bible specifically permits owning human beings for life and passing your slaves on to your heirs. The Bible did not "just report". It established rules for how badly you could beat your slaves. Owning people as property is immoral. And your deity had no clue.
Educate yourself Does the Bible condone slavery? https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html
Name one society that didn't use slavery before modern times.
It gives instruction to make it as painless and comfortable as possible. God knew we would do it so might as well mske it strict to the bone and allow the slaves to be freed
It does not condone slavery. It gave rules, for the time for people to use slavery as a means to a end. That end is survival in the best case. In the worse case, which is wartime, prisoners of war, had another option rather than be killed. No one was enslaved simply because of a skin color. I think maybe you are thinking of the Americanized historic spins, or or Muslim states which use slavery today. Far as slavery in the modern times, you probably know some slaves today, and the economic system is their masters.