CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:19
Arguments:40
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Slavery in the Bible (18)

Debate Creator

LittleMisfit(1745) pic



Slavery in the Bible

Foxglove and I were discussing slavery in the Bible, but unfortunately our discussion was cut short by SaintNow who banned nearly everyone from his debate.  So, now we have a debate dedicated to the topic.  You can view the original debate here, but to make it easier to follow each line of thought I'm going to break it up into separate arguments below showing the back and forth dialog.  You're all welcome to chime in with your thoughts on the subject as long as you keep it civil. 


"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." ~Isaac Newton

Add New Argument

LittleMisfit:

Leviticus 25:39-43 “If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall NOT make them serve as slaves. They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. Then they and their children with them shall be free from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God.”

Notice how he makes it very clear that they are not to be treated like slaves or ruled over harshly. Why would he need to say that if slaves aren't treated harshly like apologists often claim?

FoxGlove:

Yes. The Israelites had just come out of slavery in Egypt and were subjected to harsh treatment. It would not make sense for God to go to such lengths to bring them out from tyrannical Egyptian rule for them to be subjected to it again simply in a different land.

LittleMisfit:

You seem to be missing my point, which is the distinction between slavery and hired labor. There are multiple words used to describe servants in the Old Testament. In the verse above, the word translated as "slaves" is `ebed, which means a bondservant, a person bound in service without wages. The one translated as "hired or bound laborers" is sakiyr, which means exactly what it says, hired laborer. If slaves are just hired laborers, like you seem to have suggested multiple times, then there would be no reason for the author to use two different words with different meanings to describe the same thing.

I also want to point out that in the statement you just made about the Israelites in Egypt, you basically admitted that slavery in Egypt was harsh and involuntary. So what makes you think it was any different outside of Egypt? Exodus 1:11-14 describes the slavery in Egypt. It says they would "afflict them with hard labor" and "made their lives bitter with hard labor in mortar and bricks and at all kinds of labor in the field, all their labors which they rigorously imposed on them." Check out all the verses about forced labor in the Bible.. Most of them are gods followers enslaving people.

In Deut 20:10-14, God's followers are explicitly told to enslave all the cities around them, and if they won't submit, kill them.

“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you."

Now, back to the original verse we were discussing. In that passage, and others I mentioned, he is making a clear distinction between slavery and hired labor. He says Israelites are not to be treated as slaves, they are to be treated as "hired or bound laborers" and are to be released on the year of jubilee. Non-Israelites, on the other hand, can be treated as slaves, they are not hired, they are "property" and are never set free. Even after you die they become the property of your children.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your other argument seems to be that God is against slavery, but he allowed it because of free will and the hardness of people's hearts. If that is the case, why did he say, "everyone should set free his Hebrew slaves, male and female, so that no one should enslave a Jew, his brother." and then when they disobeyed he told them he would do horrible things to them in Jeremiah 34:8-22. Why didn't he say, "everyone should set free his slaves" instead of "everyone should set free his Hebrew slaves." If he is going to do horrible things to the people who disobey him, why doesn't he do that to all slave owners instead of just the ones with Hebrew slaves?

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

You seem to be missing my point, which is the distinction between slavery and hired labor. There are multiple words used to describe servants in the Old Testament. In the verse above, the word translated as "slaves" is `ebed, which means a bondservant, a person bound in service without wages. The one translated as "hired or bound laborers" is sakiyr, which means exactly what it says, hired laborer. If slaves are just hired laborers, like you seem to have suggested multiple times, then there would be no reason for the author to use two different words with different meanings to describe the same thing.

That is not what I was suggesting. Of course there is a marked distinction between the two. If someone is a hired labourer they have put themselves forward to work for someone but as the verse you quoted indicates this is not a permanent arrangement. If someone is a slave then in selling themselves to you it would be a permanent arrangement. They become a part of the master’s household in a way that a hired labourer does not; in that sense that the mere provision of food and shelter would override wage. A slave is owned, a hired labourer is not, so I was not attempting to dispute that difference.

I also want to point out that in the statement you just made about the Israelites in Egypt, you basically admitted that slavery in Egypt was harsh and involuntary. So what makes you think it was any different outside of Egypt? Exodus 1:11-14 describes the slavery in Egypt. It says they would "afflict them with hard labor" and "made their lives bitter with hard labor in mortar and bricks and at all kinds of labor in the field, all their labors which they rigorously imposed on them." Check out all the verses about forced labor in the Bible.. Most of them are gods followers enslaving people.

What makes you think the slavery conducted in Egypt had anything to do with God? It was harsh yes, and there was great suffering imposed but that was prerogative of the Egyptians who were followers of many gods – they would have been against the God of the Israelites so would hardly have observed His rules regarding slave treatment.

In Deut 20:10-14, God's followers are explicitly told to enslave all the cities around them, and if they won't submit, kill them.

“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you."

The conditions do not regard simple submission but actual warfare. Remember the inhabitants of these surrounding nations were the enemies of the Israelites so of course certain stipulations would apply when it came to battle. They were not simply dispatched to cities wholly unconnected with themselves.

Now, back to the original verse we were discussing. In that passage, and others I mentioned, he is making a clear distinction between slavery and hired labor. He says Israelites are not to be treated as slaves, they are to be treated as "hired or bound laborers" and are to be released on the year of jubilee. Non-Israelites, on the other hand, can be treated as slaves, they are not hired, they are "property" and are never set free. Even after you die they become the property of your children.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your other argument seems to be that God is against slavery, but he allowed it because of free will and the hardness of people's hearts. If that is the case, why did he say, "everyone should set free his Hebrew slaves, male and female, so that no one should enslave a Jew, his brother." and then when they disobeyed he told them he would do horrible things to them in Jeremiah 34:8-22. Why didn't he say, "everyone should set free his slaves" instead of "everyone should set free his Hebrew slaves." If he is going to do horrible things to the people who disobey him, why doesn't he do that to all slave owners instead of just the ones with Hebrew slaves?

Because God specifically did not want the Jewish people to be slaves. He did not want them to be in service to anyone but Himself for He knew the plans He had for them. As I did say before, He allowed for the practice of slavery, but would put His foot down when it came to the application of said practice to the Jews. Your line of questioning is similar in later points so I shall elaborate further down..

LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

If someone is a hired labourer they have put themselves forward to work for someone but as the verse you quoted indicates this is not a permanent arrangement. If someone is a slave then in selling themselves to you it would be a permanent arrangement.

But they aren't selling themselves. They are forced into slavery. I even included a link showing all the verses where it is referred to as "forced labor," but it looks like CreateDebate is screwing up the link. It keeps inserting a semi-colon in it, so here are the verses plus many more that talk about the methods of aquiring slaves.

In 2 Chronicles 28:8-11 King Ahaz made God mad, so God had the King of Aram and his armies kill him. They captured 200,000 Israelites in the process and were going to make them into slaves, but since they were Israelites the Prophet Oded said to let them go. The Hebrew word "subjugate" in that passage is kabash, which means to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage, violate, dominate, tread down, make subservient. In other words, they were kidnapped and forced into slavery.

Esther 7:4 "or we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed and to be annihilated. Now if we had only been sold as slaves, men and women, I would have remained silent, for the trouble would not be commensurate with the annoyance to the king.”

Notice how it doesn't say they sold themselves, they were sold by someone else. In other words, slave trade. Here are several more verses stating the same.

Psa 105:17-18 "He sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave. They afflicted his feet with fetters, He himself was laid in irons;"

Psa 44:12 You sell Your people cheaply, and have not profited by their sale.

Isa 50:1 "Thus says the LORD, “Where is the certificate of divorce By which I have sent your mother away? Or to whom of My creditors did I sell you?

Behold, you were sold for your iniquities, And for your transgressions your mother was sent away."

Amo 2:6 Thus says the LORD, “For three transgressions of Israel and for four I will not revoke its punishment, Because they sell the righteous for money And the needy for a pair of sandals.

Gen 37:27-28 “Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers listened to him. Then some Midianite traders passed by, so they pulled him up and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. Thus they brought Joseph into Egypt."

Lev 25:42 ‘For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale.

The next verse says if your parent is a slave, you automatically become a slave yourself.

Ecc 2:7 "I bought male and female slaves and I had homeborn slaves. Also I possessed flocks and herds larger than all who preceded me in Jerusalem."

Here are all the verses about forced labor.

What makes you think the slavery conducted in Egypt had anything to do with God? It was harsh yes, and there was great suffering imposed but that was prerogative of the Egyptians who were followers of many gods – they would have been against the God of the Israelites so would hardly have observed His rules regarding slave treatment.

I never said it had anything to do with god. I said that it is evidence that slavery in those days was not voluntary and that slaves were treated harshly.

Regarding gods rules of treatment, which rules are you referring to? There are very few and most of them don't apply to non-Israelites.

The conditions do not regard simple submission but actual warfare. Remember the inhabitants of these surrounding nations were the enemies of the Israelites so of course certain stipulations would apply when it came to battle. They were not simply dispatched to cities wholly unconnected with themselves.

Those cities were just minding their own business when the Israelites marched up to their gates and said be our slaves or die, not the other way around. Even if that weren't the case, that doesn't make slavery acceptable. Would it have been okay for the United States to enslave everyone in Iraq when it invaded? Of course not. So why did god say it was okay for his followers to do it? He told them to get their slaves "from the nations around you," and that's exactly what they did; they enslaved the cities around them.

Because God specifically did not want the Jewish people to be slaves.

Did God want non-Jewish people to be slaves? If the answer is no, then your statement applies to everyone, not just Jews. So your reasoning that he allowed slavery because of free will and the hardness of people's hearts isn't valid because you're only applying that logic when it supports your view.

He allowed for the practice of slavery, but would put His foot down when it came to the application of said practice to the Jews.

Why can't he put his foot down for everyone? If God is against slavery, but allowed it because of free will and the hardness of people's hearts, why did he forbid the slavery of the Israelites with threats of punishment, yet allowed the enslavement of non-Israelites? Surely if he can say "don't enslave Israelites or you'll pay," then he can say the same about non-Israelites.

LittleMisfit:

In verses 44-46 god talks about chattel slavery. I applies to non-Israelites and the person is treated as property. These people are slaves for life and cannot buy their freedom. God doesn’t say not to treat these slaves harshly and later on says you can beat them with a rod.

Leviticus 25:44-46 “As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.”

That last verse is a clear indicator that slaves are treated harshly, otherwise there would be no reason to include the second half of the verse.

FoxGlove:

Yes He does and No He does not. If somebody was so impoverished as to put themselves up to be bought as a worker (slave) then they would have no other means of buying their freedom. Therefore, they would remain with the hiring household for life.

LittleMisfit:

As I explained above, slavery is not the same as an impoverished person working as a hired laborer.

FoxGlove:

The prohibition of harsh treatment also applies to them: the term ‘alien’ already indicates that they are of foreign heritage, however they were born in Israel.

LittleMisfit:

Where does it say that the prohibition of harsh treatment also applies to them? That passage says you can make slaves out of people from the nations around you, and the people from that came from the nations around you (aliens) but currently reside in your city. It specifically says those are the people you can "treat as slaves."

FoxGlove:

The preceding verses 39-43 apply exclusively to the natives by firstly mentioning that they were rescued from Egypt and secondly that they were not be to be classified as ‘slaves’. Therefore, the succeeding verses you’ve highlighted that describes slaves would pertain to those outside of that.

LittleMisfit:

No, it applies exclusively to non-natives. When it says, “If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you..." the word that was poorly translated as "any who are dependent" is 'ach, which means brother, brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, or each to the other (reciprocal relationship). If you scroll down on this page you can see every verse in the Bible with that word. You'll see that it is never used to refer to natives, and is the exact opposite. The NIV did a very poor job translating that, so I can understand the confusion. I'll try not to link to NIV verses anymore. It's just the default on BibleGateway.com and sometimes I forget to change it.

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

As I explained above, slavery is not the same as an impoverished person working as a hired laborer.

Yes - one would be released after a certain period.

Where does it say that the prohibition of harsh treatment also applies to them? That passage says you can make slaves out of people from the nations around you, and the people from that came from the nations around you (aliens) but currently reside in your city. It specifically says those are the people you can “treat as slaves.”

Yes because even though they may reside in Israel they are not Hebrew. If the Lord was adamant that the Jews should not become slaves then the term ‘slave’ would not apply to them.

No, it applies exclusively to non-natives. When it says, “If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you..." the word that was poorly translated as "any who are dependent" is 'ach, which means brother, brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, or each to the other (reciprocal relationship). If you scroll down on this page you can see every verse in the Bible with that word. You'll see that it is never used to refer to natives, and is the exact opposite. The NIV did a very poor job translating that, so I can understand the confusion. I'll try not to link to NIV verses anymore. It's just the default on BibleGateway.com and sometimes I forget to change it.

Though I agree NIV is not the most accurate translation of text on this occasion the fault cannot be ascribed there. If we even take the KJV which reads: 39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves, we can see that this in reference to the Jews. It also highlights what I had said previously: that the standard practice of slavery commenced with someone selling themselves into such service. However, here God was issuing a caveat as to what must happen should a Jew find themselves in such a position which was that slavery was not their portion (again repeating that He brought them out of Egypt).

LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

Yes - one would be released after a certain period.

and one could be kidnapped, beaten and was considered "property"

Yes because even though they may reside in Israel they are not Hebrew. If the Lord was adamant that the Jews should not become slaves then the term ‘slave’ would not apply to them.

Wait, you said "The prohibition of harsh treatment also applies to them [aliens]," but now you seem to be saying it only applies to Hebrews, which is what I was saying. Am I understanding you correctly?

... we can see that this in reference to the Jews. It also highlights what I had said previously: that the standard practice of slavery commenced with someone selling themselves into such service. However, here God was issuing a caveat as to what must happen should a Jew find themselves in such a position which was that slavery was not their portion (again repeating that He brought them out of Egypt).

I made a stupid mistake in my argument. I confused the word native. When I hear that word I always think of the phrase "the natives are restless" which as a kid I heard in movies where they have a camp in the jungle, and the people outside the camp are the natives. So I often associate the word native with outsiders (as in the people outside the camp). So, long story short I had the meaning of the word reversed. Sorry for the confusion.

Let's back up. You said the prohibition of harsh treatment applies to aliens. I asked where it says that, and you replied with, "The preceding verses 39-43 apply exclusively to the natives... Therefore, the succeeding verses you’ve highlighted that describes slaves would pertain to those outside of that." Although most of the succedding verses do describe aliens, the last verse says, "These [aliens] you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.” It says, "your fellow Israelites" are the ones that should not be ruled over harshly, not the aliens.

LittleMisfit:

Verses 47-55 describes how if an Israelite falls on hard times and sells themselves as a servant to a non-Israelite, the servant has the option of buying their freedom. No such option is available to non-Israelites or women.

FoxGlove:

This would be to do with the Israelites standing with God [elaboration further down].

LittleMisfit:

Yes, god plays favorites and doesn't seem to care about non-Israelites in the Old Testament.

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

Yes, god plays favorites and doesn't seem to care about non-Israelites in the Old Testament.

No - this is not about frivolous favouritism. God had a specific purpose for the Jewish people to carry out, the ultimate one being that it was from their race Christ the Saviour would emerge. There was also the additional purpose of carrying out His message to all the world (in becoming prophets and missionaries etc.) directing other nations toward the Truth which is Him. It was a momentous task that would be unattainable within the bounds of slavery, hence the need for their emancipation. It is through His chosen people that the rest of the world may have Salvation.

LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

But there is no good reason for making different rules for Israelites and non-Israelites. If he truly cared about both he would have made the same rules for both. Plus your explanation doesn't explain why women are subjected to the same fate as non-Israelites.

LittleMisfit:

Deut 24:7 "If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die."

This shows us two things about slaves. First, they are kidnapped, it's not voluntary....

FoxGlove:

No, if anything it shows us that slavery is meant to be voluntary because if it were not, then there would be no penalty attached for kidnapping one.

LittleMisfit:

You seem to have missed the part about there only being a penalty if is done to "a fellow Israelite." I've listed numerous verses where god tells people to enslave entire cities, and I can provide more if you want, so if kidnapping and enslaving people is wrong, why is he telling people to do it? Solomon built a temple to the lord using "forced labor" and god wasn't upset about it at all.

LittleMisfit:

Second, treating an Israelite like a slave is such a horrible thing that the penalty is death. Yet as we've already seen, god is okay with slavery as long as it is done to non-Israelites.

FoxGlove:

God had already established a covenant with Abraham which concerned promised land, promised descendants and promised redemption. If anything this is evidence that God does not break His word because by delivering the Israelites from slavery and keeping them from it He was honouring the covenant He made. God knew the plans He had for the world and the Israelites played a huge part in that by being His chosen people; they would not have been able to fulfill their status as a great nation by continuing to be under slavery, hence why He released them from it.

LittleMisfit:

You didn't address my point. I'm not talking about Israelite slavery, I'm talking about non-Israelite slavery, which god has not only said it okay, but his armies have enslaved entire cities.

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

You seem to have missed the part about there only being a penalty if is done to "a fellow Israelite." I've listed numerous verses where god tells people to enslave entire cities, and I can provide more if you want, so if kidnapping and enslaving people is wrong, why is he telling people to do it? Solomon built a temple to the lord using "forced labor" and god wasn't upset about it at all.

No I haven’t. There is a penalty attached to kidnaping irrespective of whether the person is an Israelite or not, as pointed out in Exodus 21:16. With Deuteronomy 24:7 however, this again underscores God’s determination that the Israelites would not be slaves. In relation to Solomon, the ‘aliens’ he used for the temple’s construction were the descendants of a hostile nation, the Canaanites. As this would be a prodigious undertaking everyone would need to be involved and as the King, Solomon had the authority to exercise that right over his people in allocating roles. Since the Israelites were exempt from this they were unlikely to be used, but the Canaanites were still a fairly sizeable number so their contribution would be substantial (but of course not more sizeable than the Israelites themselves). Being dependent on them for a living the Canaanites would have been obliged to perform such tasks when conscripted.

You didn't address my point. I'm not talking about Israelite slavery, I'm talking about non-Israelite slavery, which god has not only said it okay, but his armies have enslaved entire cities.

You have mentioned this point quite a few times so I have addressed it in earlier responses – hopefully it is adequate.

LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

There is a penalty attached to kidnaping irrespective of whether the person is an Israelite or not, as pointed out in Exodus 21:16. With Deuteronomy 24:7 however, this again underscores God’s determination that the Israelites would not be slaves.

We're already discussing this in another thread so I'll address it there.

In relation to Solomon, the ‘aliens’ he used for the temple’s construction were the descendants of a hostile nation, the Canaanites.

It doesn't matter who they were. Who they are has no bearing on whether or not slavery is wrong. Iran is a hostile nation to the United States. So can we enslave them and force them to build our churches and temples to god? Would god think that is moral behavior?

As this would be a prodigious undertaking everyone would need to be involved and as the King, Solomon had the authority to exercise that right over his people in allocating roles. Being dependent on them for a living the Canaanites would have been obliged to perform such tasks when conscripted.

The Canaanites weren't "his people," they were his prisoners. They were dependent on them because their choice was be a slave or be put to death.

LittleMisfit:

In Exodus 21 god outlines some rules for keeping servants and tells people how they can exploit a loophole in his rules to force someone into a lifetime of servitude.

Exodus 21:1-6 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."

So here we have god saying that Hebrew servants are to be set free after 7 years. However, if you give your servant a wife and they have kids, you can hold the wife and kids hostage in order to get the servant to serve for a lifetime. Also note that the women and children are never set free, unlike male servants who can leave after seven years.

FoxGlove:

There are no “loopholes” in the Bible as you call them. Furthermore, if you are saying God outlines methods of exploiting His rules then that is calling Him dishonest which would be a false claim. Such behaviour is at odds with His purity.

LittleMisfit:

I'm not saying God outlines methods of exploiting His rules, I'm saying ordinary men did that. I don't actually believe in god. I think the Bible was written by men in an attempt to control people. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

I'm not saying God outlines methods of exploiting His rules, I'm saying ordinary men did that. I don't actually believe in god. I think the Bible was written by men in an attempt to control people. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Indeed we shall, for that is a whole other debate entirely!

LittleMisfit:

Exodus 21:1-6 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."

So here we have god saying that Hebrew servants are to be set free after 7 years. However, if you give your servant a wife and they have kids, you can hold the wife and kids hostage in order to get the servant to serve for a lifetime. Also note that the women and children are never set free, unlike male servants who can leave after seven years.

FoxGlove:

You’ve misunderstood this greatly. All it is saying is that if a servant declares his love for his family then he should not be separated from them. It is about keeping a loving family together, not about holding the women and children hostage. Secondly two, the master would be entitled to have some right over the servant’s family if he provided them for him in the first place; as the first part of the text says, if the servant already had a wife upon entering the master’s service they were free to leave together.

LittleMisfit:

You didn't address my last point about the women and children never being set free, unlike male servants who can leave in the seventh year. That's an important factor, because if they were set free like men were, then the whole problem would be resolved. Each of them could serve their time and then be released together as a family. The man would only have to stay until his wife and kids were released.

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

You didn't address my last point about the women and children never being set free, unlike male servants who can leave in the seventh year. That's an important factor, because if they were set free like men were, then the whole problem would be resolved. Each of them could serve their time and then be released together as a family. The man would only have to stay until his wife and kids were released.

Again this is in tribute to the provision of the servant’s family by the master. As I said before, if the man came into his service already married then upon expiration of his service he could depart with his wife unhindered by his master – the same principle would have likely extended to any children they had because the master does not have that authority since he did not issue them. The master’s authority comes only if he was responsible for the single man’s ability to marry and have a family; this wife however, would have been a servant too and so the master would still have had claim over her.

LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

Sorry, but that still doesn't address the problem. Why did god say women are never to be set free, but men are?

LittleMisfit:

Continuing on to verses 28-32 god says if someone has a bull that frequently gores people and the owner doesn't keep the bull penned up, if the bull kills someone both the bull and the owner are to be put to death. However, if the person that got killed was just a slave the owner only has to pay 30 shekels. Remember, these things are supposedly direct quotes from god, so god clearly doesn't think people are equal.

FoxGlove:

Again no; the verses read that if a bull gores a slave not only must the owner pay 30 shekels but the bull is to be stoned to death just as with anyone else.

The owner is not held responsible for the death of a man or a woman unless the bull’s violent behaviour is habitual. The penalty is the same, there is no inequality documented here.

LittleMisfit:

You are correct about the bull being put to death in addition to the owner having to pay 30 shekels. However, the penalty for goring someone to death when the bull's behavior is habitual is death to the bull and the owner. If the person that was killed was a slave, only the bull gets killed, the owner gets to live. Therefore, they think the life of a slave is not as important as the life of a free man.

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

You are correct about the bull being put to death in addition to the owner having to pay 30 shekels. However, the penalty for goring someone to death when the bull's behavior is habitual is death to the bull and the owner. If the person that was killed was a slave, only the bull gets killed, the owner gets to live. Therefore, they think the life of a slave is not as important as the life of a free man.

The owner gets to live but must pay 30 shekels (the standard price of a slave) as compensation. That price does not exist for a free person. The owner also is not always killed automatically in the case of a free man’s death; sometimes they may redeem their life on account of fulfilling the payment demanded by the deceased’s family. Animals were greatly valued back then due to their employment for sacrificial purposes so to have one killed would have been a colossal loss to the owner.

LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

Paying 30 sheckles is not even remotely equal to a life. Not only that but just think about what you said, "30 shekels (the standard price of a slave)". Do you really think someone is going to sell themselves into a lifetime of slavery for only 30 shekels? No, those 30 shekels aren't even going to the slave, they are going to the person selling them.

LittleMisfit:

The god described in the Bible clearly doesn’t object to slavery. He even defines the rules for it. So as I see it we are left with two possible conclusions.

1. God condones slavery and is therefore not benevolent.

2. The Bible was written by men who claimed god said those things, but god never really said those things or he just doesn’t exist.

FoxGlove:

Neither of those conclusions stand. Firstly, God allowing the practice of slavery does not equate to non-benevolence. As I had mentioned prior, as human beings had constructed their culture in this way God defined the rules as a means of regulating the practice to ensure the rights of everyone were protected. If human beings abused those rights then that was a reflection on their lack of benevolence, not God’s. Secondly, slavery at this time was not inherently oppressive: it was a purely economic arrangement, not the entire subjugation of a race as the Western world practiced centuries later, whereby people were kidnapped and separated from their families regardless of how devoted they were. The Bible specifically condemns this method of acquirement as your provided verses evidence.

LittleMisfit:

I believe I've already addressed all of those claims in my arguments above, but if you feel I haven't please let me know which one you would like me to address.

1 point

As I had mentioned prior, as human beings had constructed their culture in this way God defined the rules as a means of regulating the practice to ensure the rights of everyone were protected. If human beings abused those rights then that was a reflection on their lack of benevolence, not God’s.

I found this particularly telling. This suggests that we don't follow the Bible, but that the Bible is written to our specifications. God is benevolent because He made rules to govern the terrible things we do. If the Bible actually was the word of God it would describe what God wants us to do, and not how to continue to do bad things the way He condones. I find this to also be contradicting Christian beliefs.

LittleMisfit:

The following verses are often cited by apologists as proof that god is against slavery.

FoxGlove:

You mean that God is against slavery as we understand it in modern society.

LittleMisfit:

Yes, although as I've explained above, the two are one and the same.

--------------------------------------------

LittleMisfit:

Exodus 21:16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.”

I believe this verse is only referring to the kidnapping of Israelites. Why do I think that?

1. The same rule is restated in Deut 24:7 but this time with added clarification. “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die."

If it's wrong to kidnap anyone, why would he add "any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel" to it. There would be no need to include that part.

FoxGlove:

This is in regard to the notion of Israelites being slaves as opposed to sole focus on the kidnapping aspect. As your other verses read, kidnapping was prohibited regardless of who it was. Having been delivered out of slavery under Egyptian hands it was not their portion to return to it.

LittleMisfit:

Then there is a contradiction. If it's "prohibited regardless of who it was", why do god's armies do it so much?

LittleMisfit:

2. Moses tells god's followers to enslave all the non-Israelites cities in the area. Deuteronomy 20:10-15.

FoxGlove:

Not before peace negotiations are issued. Even then this gives no indication that they will suffer mistreatment, particularly if God’s instructions were heeded.

LittleMisfit:

Peace negotiations??? They said, be our slaves or we will slaughter you and take your women and children as plunder.

Gods instructions are you can beat slaves with a rod as long as they survive the beating for a few days. They are your "property" for life. He emphasizes numerous times not to treat Israelites like slaves, don't treat them harshly. If slaves aren't treated harshly there is not need to tell them not to treat Israelites like slaves. There are numerous verses to support that they are treated harshly. The whole enslavement of the Israelites by the Egyptians that you mentioned is proof of that.

LittleMisfit:

3. It contradicts many of the verses we talked about earlier, but that contradiction is resolved if this verse only applies to Israelites.

FoxGlove:

The contradiction is not resolved because it was never there in the first instance.

LittleMisfit:

So you're telling me “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death" and the enslavement of entire cities is not contradictory. Telling someone be my slave or I'll kill you is kidnapping them. If I put a gun to your head and say come with me or I'll shoot you, that is kidnapping.

--------------------------------------------

LittleMisfit:

Eph 6:9 "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him."

Since god has already stated there is no punishment for beating your slaves with a rod, either Jesus is not god, god changed his mind, or this is only referring to Israelite slaves.

FoxGlove:

A master qualifies to exert certain rights over their slave; physical discipline would come under this. However, physical discipline does not equate to complete maltreatment and this is evidently what this verse is referring to. Therefore, your inference is incorrect.

LittleMisfit:

There should be no master/slave situation to begin with. Beating someone with a rod is maltreatment. Do you think bosses should be able to beat their employees if they are slacking off? The only rule in the Bible about beating your slaves is that have to survive the beating for a day or two. If they die after that, it's okay. It doesn't say "don't beat them," "beat them gently," or "don't own slaves."

--------------------------------------------

LittleMisfit:

Col 4:1 "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."

What is right and fair is to not be a slave!

FoxGlove:

That is what is right and fair, however, as human beings we do not always concern ourselves with that and so this is when God will step in.

LittleMisfit:

But he isn't stepping in and has explicitly said that slavery is okay.

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

Then there is a contradiction. If it's "prohibited regardless of who it was", why do god's armies do it so much?

No there is no contradiction. When God’s armies descended upon nations and took their people as slaves that does not equate to kidnapping as you seem to be suggesting. They are at war with those nations and therefore have legitimate ground to exercise that course of action should they be triumphant. The same would be expected if it were the reverse. That is wholly dissimilar to an individual walking along the streets and then suddenly being stolen – there is no legitimate ground for this, hence why it is prohibited.

Peace negotiations??? They said, be our slaves or we will slaughter you and take your women and children as plunder.

Gods instructions are you can beat slaves with a rod as long as they survive the beating for a few days. They are your "property" for life. He emphasizes numerous times not to treat Israelites like slaves, don't treat them harshly. If slaves aren't treated harshly there is not need to tell them not to treat Israelites like slaves. There are numerous verses to support that they are treated harshly. The whole enslavement of the Israelites by the Egyptians that you mentioned is proof of that.

The enslavement of the Israelites by the Egyptians is proof that the Egyptians treated them harshly as it suited them. Mosaic Law was far more humane in its attitude to slaves than other co-existing Laws and future Laws to come centuries later. Egyptian masters could abuse their slaves without restriction and bore no accountability for it. Under Mosaic Law owners are held to account for the treatment of their slaves which could even result in their own death as previously mentioned.

God permitted physical discipline (the rod) but He did not permit physical abuse: an injured slave would qualify for liberation from service on account of their injury at the hands of their master as Exodus 21:26 records. They have the right to not be subjected to oppression in their new surroundings should they escape from foreign land (Deuteronomy 23:15). Such laws would feature if God did not care for non-Israelites.

So you're telling me “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death" and the enslavement of entire cities is not contradictory. Telling someone be my slave or I'll kill you is kidnapping them. If I put a gun to your head and say come with me or I'll shoot you, that is kidnapping.

No, it is not contradictory for reasons specified prior. Although your scenario exemplifies kidnapping, it is impertinent to said Biblical events. Kidnapping tends to be committed against an innocent party; those besieged in the Bible are not innocent parties.

There should be no master/slave situation to begin with. Beating someone with a rod is maltreatment. Do you think bosses should be able to beat their employees if they are slacking off? The only rule in the Bible about beating your slaves is that have to survive the beating for a day or two. If they die after that, it's okay. It doesn't say "don't beat them," "beat them gently," or "don't own slaves."

This verse pertains to the ruling over criminal offences - in this case homicide. Again with most laws treatment of the slave was at the master’s discretion in so far as even if intentional death (murder) featured the owner could expect no action against him. I in fact think I may have answered this point in response to your initial post which was that this Law was a means of ascertaining the intent of the master toward his slave. If death is instantaneous then it would demonstrate the master’s resolve to kill his slave (since the severity would likely result in immediate death) and thus he would bear full accountability. However, the slave’s eventual death could have been precipitated by other factors and so the owner could not face those same charges.

But he isn’t stepping in and has explicitly said that slavery is okay.

He has stepped in, because without His intervention, slaves would be entitled to zero rights. It also is not a matter of Him explicitly stating that slavery is okay; He has simply defined its governance so that justice may apply to all and not solely to those with authority. God may have released the Israelites from slavery, but this does not mean that when they came to own slaves themselves that it would be acceptable to replicate the same brutality they were subjected to. He still expected His chosen people to be answerable for their actions.

LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

No there is no contradiction. When God’s armies descended upon nations and took their people as slaves that does not equate to kidnapping as you seem to be suggesting. They are at war with those nations and therefore have legitimate ground to exercise that course of action should they be triumphant.

So kidnapping one person is wrong, but if you declare war against a nation you can kidnap and enslave all of them and that's okay with god. Seriously?

The same would be expected if it were the reverse.

Then why doesn't any civilized nation on Earth do that? We don't because we know it's reprehensible behavior.

That is wholly dissimilar to an individual walking along the streets and then suddenly being stolen – there is no legitimate ground for this, hence why it is prohibited.

There is never a legitimate ground for slavery.

The enslavement of the Israelites by the Egyptians is proof that the Egyptians treated them harshly as it suited them. Mosaic Law was far more humane in its attitude to slaves than other co-existing Laws and future Laws to come centuries later. Egyptian masters could abuse their slaves without restriction and bore no accountability for it. Under Mosaic Law owners are held to account for the treatment of their slaves which could even result in their own death as previously mentioned.

You'll have to show me some examples of how Mosaic Law was far more humane. So far the only rules we've talked about is if you're going to beat them, make sure they survive the beating and don't lose any teeth or eyes. That's it. I would hardly call that far more humane. Slightly more humane, sure, I'll grant you that.

God permitted physical discipline (the rod) but He did not permit physical abuse: an injured slave would qualify for liberation from service on account of their injury at the hands of their master as Exodus 21:26 records.

Beating someone with a rod is physical abuse. Try telling a judge that you beat your kids with a rod for discipline and see how fast you get thrown in jail. God said as long as they survive the beating it's okay. The rules in Exodus only say they are to be set free if you destroy their eye or knock a tooth out. Other than that, you can beat them all you want.

They have the right to not be subjected to oppression in their new surroundings should they escape from foreign land (Deuteronomy 23:15). Such laws would feature if God did not care for non-Israelites.

If they escape from a foreign land you have to treat them well, but you can still go to that foreign land and buy them from slave traders.

Although your scenario exemplifies kidnapping, it is impertinent to said Biblical events. Kidnapping tends to be committed against an innocent party; those besieged in the Bible are not innocent parties.

So every single person in all of those cities, including the children, weren't innocent?

This verse pertains to the ruling over criminal offences - in this case homicide. Again with most laws treatment of the slave was at the master’s discretion in so far as even if intentional death (murder) featured the owner could expect no action against him. I in fact think I may have answered this point in response to your initial post which was that this Law was a means of ascertaining the intent of the master toward his slave. If death is instantaneous then it would demonstrate the master’s resolve to kill his slave (since the severity would likely result in immediate death) and thus he would bear full accountability. However, the slave’s eventual death could have been precipitated by other factors and so the owner could not face those same charges.

The master's intent is irrelevant to my point. My point is god says you can beat your slaves, period. A benevolent god would not under any circumstances say it's okay to own people as "property" and beat them.

He has stepped in, because without His intervention, slaves would be entitled to zero rights.

The only rights a slave has is the right to not be beaten to death and not have your teeth or eyes knocked out. I would hardly call those rights.

It also is not a matter of Him explicitly stating that slavery is okay; He has simply defined its governance so that justice may apply to all and not solely to those with authority.

Justice for all??? Except for non-Israelites and women.

When I saw the movie, "12 Years A Slave," the plantation owners would gather for religious services on Sunday and Bible passages would be read condoning slavery, so, the Southern White men felt that slavery was O.K. since the Bible gave the O.K. to it.

Was his position "Slavery is not condoned in the bible"? If so I can see where this is going.

LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

She has taken a few different positions. One was that slavery in Biblical times was not the same as modern day slavery, it was more like indentured servitude. This is the response I hear from most Christians, and while it is true that the Bible does talk about indentured servitude, it only applies to Israelites. Non-Israelites were subjected to chattel slavery.

Her other position is that god disapproved of slavery but allowed it because of free will and the hardness of people's hearts, kind of like how he allows divorce.

Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting her position. I recommend reading her responses to get a better understanding of her position.

Starchild123(832) Clarified
1 point

That is true, non-Israelites were subject to slavery. Cannot deny that. I feel as if you read the responses well and properly analyzed them.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed Banned
1 point

It was law for a certain people in a certain time of history. God made rules for it and His rules are always good and just. Israel was told to totally annihilate some of the people they went to war with and they rebelled against God's commandment at times of victory and in times of fear they rebelled by saying they did not believe God would give them the victory.

You may have been religious and attended places which mentioned some kind of Jesus, but you never were a Christian or you could not try to be slandering God and accusing Him of not being good. A real Christian will accept death by any torture or method before denying the Lord's honor by smearing His word or name. You disgrace yourself by trying to say God is not good. You need to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved from Hell.

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

Indeed, Little Misfit has summarised my position well, though you may have read through my responses as he recommended. This discussion primarily arose from the question of God’s love for human beings.

1 point

Slavery in the Bible is also discussed in the letter to the Romans, the Book of Romans. You need to study what the Bible says about slavery there. You are avoiding the personally important discussion of slavery in the Bible by using things of the past to try to frame a case accusing God of not being good.

If God is not good, everything good you know, hope for, or experience is futile because no good is promised to you. All good is gifted from God and you are spitting in His face and daring Him to take it away from you. You are playing the fool thinking you are being smart and strong...or whatever you think you are.

Wow, this debate really spiraled out of control into a million different tangents. It took forever to write up responses. If you still want to continue this debate maybe we should try to reign it in a little. Maybe we could just come up with a short list of the most important aspects of the debate and just talk about one at a time. Afterwards, if we want to go back to any of the tangents we can. What do you think? Do you want to continue the debate or do you feel like we're not really getting anywhere?

Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

WOMEN

I presume your comment referred to women being released on their own as the men are, for as I said before, God does not prohibit them from leaving in every circumstance as the verse in Exodus explains. However, at that time, a woman departing a household and setting off on her own would hardly have been practical considering her standing. Women did not have the same means of independence as men to support themselves or their children and were more likely to fall into harm than if accompanied by a husband.

NON-ISRAELITES

I’m going to re-clarify this point as reading back I can see the cause for confusion. God expected fair treatment from masters towards their servants/slaves and held them accountable otherwise, regardless of whether they were Israelites or not. However, as mentioned before, the Israelites were always going to have a significant status in line with the purposes they had been destined to fulfill as mentioned earlier. This is why they were recruited as hired labourers rather than slaves as the non-Israelites were and why the conditions as to their treatment were emphasized (in contrast to what they endured under Egyptian rule). That does not mean God would not punish an Israelite owner for the gross abuse of their foreign worker and if they observed His Law rightly, that non-Israelite would not be oppressed at all.

KIDNAP

In reference to your point about this in connection with whole nations again it was not mindless tyranny. The LORD knew what would happen if these other nations were left to carry on as they had been before. The result would be an eventual rebellion against the Jewish people, therefore subduing them would eliminate that chance. Ergo His orders were administered according to the hearts of men and some people’s hearts once blackened would never change. An example of this is in the Book of Samuel when Saul was told to kill all of the Amalekites after they attacked the Israelites – which he didn’t. He left behind their King and Queen who rose up in rebellion and whose descendants were of the most hostile toward the Israelites, continuing for hundreds of years into the time of Esther.

MOSAIC LAW

In spite of the fact that slaves were under the authority of their masters, they could expect protection from oppression rather than punishment which included those who were fugitives (as was the case with Roman and Egyptian Law codes). Under typical Ancient World Codes, slaves were not seen as equals in any capacity, hence why masters were not answerable for their treatment of their slaves and no laws addressed this. Yet under Mosaic Law slaves were also subject to the same privileges as their free counterparts i.e. festivals, resting on the Sabbath and could be considered the same as the family members of said household. Therefore, the treatment issued allowed for a good relationship between the two to the extent of providing conditions on the premise that a slave may even desire to stay in service when his term is expired. Throughout the Bible there are verses that pertain to the fundamental equal standing between all manner of peoples as human beings in not being exempt from God’s judgment.

30 SHEKELS

No, it is not right that any such price should be placed on human life (which is priceless) and I was not meaning to suggest otherwise, but that is what happens when sin enters the world. There was little if any alternative for someone who could not repay their debts and support their families. Slavery would provide that economic security; it is just regrettable that it is in obligation to another human being that stretches beyond performing simple favours.

PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE

God does not actually command masters to beat their slaves nor does He advocate human beings terming one another as property. If He didn’t care about the treatment of slaves then His Word would not make a point of their welfare at all. He was, and still is concerned with the rights of everyone, whether master or servant. This includes defining punishments for certain acts (i.e. murder), as the whole of Exodus 21 demonstrates. Furthermore, concepts of justice and fairness resound throughout and shape the entire character of the Bible and a master who truly observes God’s Laws would not be in the business of mistreating anyone and it would be possible for a slave to develop a good relationship with his master (hence Exodus 21:5).

I recognise how long this has taken and tried to summarise things, although I sense that we may be at an impasse. I am content for you to respond to my points should you still wish to or we may just wind up agreeing to disagree which is fine

LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

Yeah, I feel like we're not making any progress in this debate and are just going in circles. At this point I'm okay agreeing to disagree. I appreciate you keeping the debate civil, something that seems to be seriously lacking on this site. I look forward to future debates with you.

Bible Slavery