Slavery in the bible

Enoch07 said:

John 13: 34-34

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

All men would include slaves.

Sorry you just wrong.

Click to expand...

That says absolutely nothing about slavery at all, never mind anything about it being immoral. That's opposed to all the parts (e.g. Leviticus, Exodus) that specifically explain how slaves are to be procured (from the heathens that are round about you) and treated (beating them is cool, as long as they don't die within a specific timeframe), while never, ever pointing out that owning human beings as property is immoral or wrong.

You are reaching. Enough with the tap dance. Christians need to just own the fact that the Bible says what it does about slavery and give these mental gymnastics a rest. I know slavery is wrong and so do you. It's clear that the people who wrote (parts of) the Bible did not.

SkepticThinker said:

(beating them is cool, as long as they don't die within a specific timeframe)

Click to expand...

For the record... this is a hyperbolic / not objective rendering of these verses.

SkepticThinker said:

You are reaching. Enough with the tap dance. Christians need to just own the fact that the Bible says what it does about slavery and give these mental gymnastics a rest. I know slavery is wrong and so do you. It's clear that the people who wrote (parts of) the Bible did not.

Click to expand...

Please. The comment "beating them is cool", is reaching.

Please. Christians ( and others ) do own up to the facts. But they ( and others ) do not adhere to the verses about Biblical Slavery in the absence of all the other verses in the Bible.

Please. It is not tap dancing to consider the Bible as a unit.

What you are describing is not Christianity. You are describing a new religion, maybe it would be called "Slavery-ism"? The tenets of this religion are: **Only** the following verses are Holy, none of the other verses are Holy.

Exodus 21: 2-6
Leviticus 25: 39-55
Deuteronomy 15: 12-18
Ephesians 6: 5
First Timothy 6: 1

dybmh said:

For the record... this is a hyperbolic / not objective rendering of these verses.



Please. The comment "beating them is cool", is reaching.

Please. Christians ( and others ) do own up to the facts. But they ( and others ) do not adhere to the verses about Biblical Slavery in the absence of all the other verses in the bible.

Please. It is not tap dancing to consider the Bible as a unit.

What you are describing is not Christianity. You are describing a new religion, maybe it would be called "Slavery-ism"? The tenets of this religions are: **Only** the following verses are Holy, none of the other verses are Holy.

Click to expand...

You appear to be guilty of what you accuse others of doing. It is clear that the Bible allows for the beating of slaves. "Excessive" beating was not allowed . But the Bible appears to have a different definition of excessive than you do. A good comparison would be to the actions that a police officer is allowed to do. When a person is resisting physically, but not threatening the life of an officer strikes to the body with a fist or even a baton are allowed. Strikes to the head are not. If one considers the Bible as a unit beating of slaves was allowed. Beatings that caused permanent damage were not.

dybmh said:

Respectfully... it's not the same as a police officer using a baton. This is why:

A legitimate 'use-of-force' by a police officer does not incur a penalty. Beating a slave renders the slave free; this is a loss of property / a penalty.

My objection is to the claim "it's cool ( it's OK ) to beat a slave." That is not an objective rendering of the verse. Beating a slave results in punitive action: a loss of property.

Click to expand...

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that beating a slave will set him free. You are grossly misinterpreting a verse at best. It is only excessive beating that causes that to occur and the Bible is clear on what is considered to be excessive.

dybmh said:

For the record... this is a hyperbolic / not objective rendering of these verses.



Please. The comment "beating them is cool", is reaching.

Please. Christians ( and others ) do own up to the facts. But they ( and others ) do not adhere to the verses about Biblical Slavery in the absence of all the other verses in the Bible.

Please. It is not tap dancing to consider the Bible as a unit.

What you are describing is not Christianity. You are describing a new religion, maybe it would be called "Slavery-ism"? The tenets of this religion are: **Only** the following verses are Holy, none of the other verses are Holy.

Exodus 21: 2-6
Leviticus 25: 39-55
Deuteronomy 15: 12-18
Ephesians 6: 5
First Timothy 6: 1

Click to expand...

Exodus 21:20-21:

20 “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."

Hmm, okay so you can beat a slave as long as they don't die as a direct result. And I don't see any punishment listed at all for a person who beats a slave who doesn't die after a day or two. But you don't like when I point out that beating a slave appears to be fine.
Am I missing something? Where is the part that says beating a slave is not okay?

Subduction Zone said:

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that beating a slave will set him free. You are grossly misinterpreting a verse at best. It is only excessive beating that causes that to occur and the Bible is clear on what is considered to be excessive.

Click to expand...

yes, i was confusing the 2 different types of slaves, i realized that and deleted my post.

@SkepticThinker , @Subduction Zone ,

I apologize, I was multi-tasking this morning and I did indeed get confused on the verses in Exodus. The situation of a slave going free based on loss of an eye or limb is part of the Jewish Law, not included in the verses. And I should have reviewed the law prior to posting... that was careless. I'm sorry.

My objection and claim of hyperbolic rhetoric is based on saying that beating a slave is "cool". As in, catching a sweet wave at the beach is "cool". Or getting a date to the prom is "cool".

Does that make sense. I didn't intend to claim that the Bible does not allow beating. I meant that the Bible doesn't make it out to be a positive thing.

Subduction Zone said:

You appear to be guilty of what you accuse others of doing.

Click to expand...

Question: is it the claim of "reaching" that I am guilty of? Yes. I am reaching. Is there something else that is hypocritical in my arguments?

SkepticThinker said:

Hmm, okay so you can beat a slave as long as they don't die as a direct result. And I don't see any punishment listed at all for a person who beats a slave who doesn't die after a day or two. But you don't like when I point out that beating a slave appears to be fine.
Am I missing something? Where is the part that says beating a slave is not okay?

Click to expand...

It's not that you are missing something, but your approach does not allow for other verses which put limits on this behavior.

There are 2 ways to look at the issue of beating a slave, IMHO.

1) From a Jewish perspective, it would involve looking at the verses as a legal matter. The law does a poor job of legislating ethical and/or moral behavior. I gave my opinion on this in post#312 ( link )

2) From a Christian perspective, it involves looking at what Jesus said and meant.

Both approaches involve looking at the entire scripture, not just the verses that describe beating a Slave.

My objection on your approach, respectfully, is because no Christian, Catholic, or Jewish person ( that I am aware of ) only asserts that the verses about Slavery are Holy. It is misrepresenting the religion.

Maybe this helps to support my claim?

Take a look at what is said below:

SkepticThinker said:

Enough with the tap dance. Christians need to just own the fact that the Bible says what it does about slavery and give these mental gymnastics a rest.

Click to expand...

This goes both ways, doesn't it?

Bible Critics need to "just own the facts" that the Bible says "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." and "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Ignoring that these verses exist and claiming they are irrelevant is, a form of mental gymnastics. Isn't it?

Also, please look at this:

SkepticThinker said:

I know slavery is wrong and so do you. It's clear that the people who wrote (parts of) the Bible did not.

Click to expand...

I think it's important to point out that people who do not believe in God or in the Holy quality of the Bible need to put themselves in the mindset of an Theist if the Bible Critic wants to genuinely understand how the religion is practiced by its members. Saying, "It's clear that the people who wrote ( parts of the Bible )... did not" is approaching the subject matter from the perspective of a Bible Critic. What is wrong with that? It makes sense that someone who does not believe that God is real, or that the entire Bible is Holy would read the verses in Exodus and conclude that it's fine to beat a slave. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense for someone who believes in God and who believes that the entire Bible is Holy to believe that it's fine to beat a slave.

The only way for a person to believe that it is fine to beat a slave while at the same time believing in God and the entire Bible is Holy is if they assign more value to the verses that say it's OK to the verses that say it's not OK.

Denying that the verses I provided and @Enoch07 provided would prohibit beating a slave is fine for a Bible Critic, but it is not part of the Christian religion.

It makes sense for a Bible Critic to point to the Bible and say it should have said Slavery is prohibited, carte blanche, but as I said earlier, there are specific cases where freeing slaves en mass would be a problem. And without a Jail system, Slavery operates as crowd-sourced incarceration. Also, the manner in which slaves were treated matters. If they were treated well, it can be seen as a halfway-house between foreign slavery and a more moral humane life style.

dybmh said:

@SkepticThinker , @Subduction Zone ,

I apologize, I was multi-tasking this morning and I did indeed get confused on the verses in Exodus. The situation of a slave going free based on loss of an eye or limb is part of the Jewish Law, not included in the verses. And I should have reviewed the law prior to posting... that was careless. I'm sorry.

My objection and claim of hyperbolic rhetoric is based on saying that beating a slave is "cool". As in, catching a sweet wave at the beach is "cool". Or getting a date to the prom is "cool".

Does that make sense. I didn't intend to claim that the Bible does not allow beating. I meant that the Bible doesn't make it out to be a positive thing.



Question: is it the claim of "reaching" that I am guilty of? Yes. I am reaching. Is there something else that is hypocritical in my arguments?



It's not that you are missing something, but your approach does not allow for other verses which put limits on this behavior.

There are 2 ways to look at the issue of beating a slave, IMHO.

1) From a Jewish perspective, it would involve looking at the verses as a legal matter. The law does a poor job of legislating ethical and/or moral behavior. I gave my opinion on this in post#312 ( link )

2) From a Christian perspective, it involves looking at what Jesus said and meant.

Both approaches involve looking at the entire scripture, not just the verses that describe beating a Slave.

My objection on your approach, respectfully, is because no Christian, Catholic, or Jewish person ( that I am aware of ) only asserts that the verses about Slavery are Holy. It is misrepresenting the religion.

Maybe this helps to support my claim?

Take a look at what is said below:



This goes both ways, doesn't it?

Bible Critics need to "just own the facts" that the Bible says "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." and "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Ignoring that these verses exist and claiming they are irrelevant is, a form of mental gymnastics. Isn't it?

Also, please look at this:



I think it's important to point out that people who do not believe in God or in the Holy quality of the Bible need to put themselves in the mindset of an Theist if the Bible Critic wants to genuinely understand how the religion is practiced by its members. Saying, "It's clear that the people who wrote ( parts of the Bible )... did not" is approaching the subject matter from the perspective of a Bible Critic. What is wrong with that? It makes sense that someone who does not believe that God is real, or that the entire Bible is Holy would read the verses in Exodus and conclude that it's fine to beat a slave. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense for someone who believes in God and who believes that the entire Bible is Holy to believe that it's fine to beat a slave.

The only way for a person to believe that it is fine to beat a slave while at the same time believing in God and the entire Bible is Holy is if they assign more value to the verses that say it's OK to the verses that say it's not OK.

Denying that the verses I provided and @Enoch07 provided would prohibit beating a slave is fine for a Bible Critic, but it is not part of the Christian religion.

It makes sense for a Bible Critic to point to the Bible and say it should have said Slavery is prohibited, carte blanche, but as I said earlier, there are specific cases where freeing slaves en mass would be a problem. And without a Jail system, Slavery operates as crowd-sourced incarceration. Also, the manner in which slaves were treated matters. If they were treated well, it can be seen as a halfway-house between foreign slavery and a more moral humane life style.

Click to expand...

Overstatement can lead to rejection. The Bible may not say that beating a slave is "cool" but it was clearly permitted if the owner thought it necessary. And the Bible tells them not to be cruel, which would be excessive beating or beating for little to no reason. But if a slave refused to work it appears that beating was a very real threat. How else does one make a captive slave that has no hope of freedom work?

In the old South owners knew that excessive beating was not wise either. It was against one's economic interests. Beating was a very real threat that kept slaves working in all sorts of cultures.

Subduction Zone said:

Overstatement can lead to rejection.

Click to expand...

Did I do this? Are you saying that I overstated and that leads to a rejection of my claim? ( These are honest questions; I appreciate your feedback.)

Subduction Zone said:

How else does one make a captive slave that has no hope of freedom work?

Click to expand...

Evidence that begins with "how else does" in my opinion is weak evidence. Example: Claim: The Earth is flat. "How else does my baseball sit still without rolling off the planet."

Also, it is assumed that the captive slave has no hope of freedom.

And, it is assumed that the slave doesn't want to work simply to avoid boredom.

One possible reason that the beating is left on the table is to discourage heinous deplorable behavior by the slave.

It's possible that the law is on the books but was not enforced.

dybmh said:

Did I do this? Are you saying that I overstated and that leads to a rejection of my claim? ( These are honest questions; I appreciate your feedback.)

Evidence that begins with "how else does" in my opinion is weak evidence. Example: Claim: The Earth is flat. "How else does my baseball sit still without rolling off the planet."

Also, it is assumed that the captive slave has no hope of freedom.

And, it is assumed that the slave doesn't want to work simply to avoid boredom.

One possible reason that the beating is left on the table is to discourage heinous deplorable behavior by the slave.

It's possible that the law is on the books but was not enforced.

Click to expand...

Yes, you were just as guilty of overstatement.

As to the captive slave the Bible tells us that he is the owner's property. That his heirs inherit that slave. And not only that the Bible also tells an owner how to trick a fellow Hebrew into being a slave for life.

Subduction Zone said:

Overstatement can lead to rejection. The Bible may not say that beating a slave is "cool" but it was clearly permitted if the owner thought it necessary. And the Bible tells them not to be cruel, which would be excessive beating or beating for little to no reason. But if a slave refused to work it appears that beating was a very real threat. How else does one make a captive slave that has no hope of freedom work?

In the old South owners knew that excessive beating was not wise either. It was against one's economic interests. Beating was a very real threat that kept slaves working in all sorts of cultures.

Click to expand...

Cool = not objectionable, acceptable, okay, fine
That's what I meant by it.

There's a great quote from the Handmaid's Tale that speaks to your comments that one of the Commanders says about his "employees" who are essentially just slaves:

"See, this is the problem. How am I supposed to motivate employees if I can’t leverage salaries?"

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, you were just as guilty of overstatement.

Click to expand...

"Just as" so both my claim and the other claim can be rejected?

Subduction Zone said:

As to the captive slave the Bible tells us that he is the owner's property. That his heirs inherit that slave. And not only that the Bible also tells an owner how to trick a fellow Hebrew into being a slave for life.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you are approaching the subject from the Jewish perspective? What Jesus said and meant is not being considered? There's nothing wrong with this. But if the topic is being approached from a Jewish perspective then what is written in the verses are only the cliff-notes. Jewish people did not follow the verses they followed the law. ( well that's the idea anyway ).

There is a sect maybe it would have been considered a cult, of people who denied the law and only followed precisely what is written in the verses. It's not main stream Judaism. But if you want to read more about them, here is a link:

Karaite Judaism - Wikipedia

dybmh said:

"Just as" so both my claim and the other claim can be rejected?

It sounds like you are approaching the subject from the Jewish perspective? What Jesus said and meant is not being considered? There's nothing wrong with this. But if the topic is being approached from a Jewish perspective then what is written in the verses are only the cliff-notes. Jewish people did not follow the verses they followed the law. ( well that's the idea anyway ).

There is a sect maybe it would have been considered a cult, of people who denied the law and only followed precisely what is written in the verses. It's not main stream Judaism. But if you want to read more about them, here is a link:

Karaite Judaism - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

How do you think that the Hebrews kept control over their slaves? I have a feeling that quite a few of the "laws" that you refer to were developed well after the Jews were in a position to be slave owners.

Subduction Zone said:

How do you think that the Hebrews kept control over their slaves?

Click to expand...

I don't know.

Subduction Zone said:

I have a feeling that quite a few of the "laws" that you refer to were developed well after the Jews were in a position to be slave owners.

Click to expand...

OK. That is not Orthodox Judaism.

Other branches of Judaism do not claim that the Torah is authoritative. There really is no hypocrisy or double standards.

You are taking the approach of Conservative, Reformed, Reconstruction, Humanistic, etc... Judaism.

Again, this is a solution looking for a problem.

dybmh said:

I don't know.

OK. That is not Orthodox Judaism.

Other branches of Judaism do not claim that the Torah is authoritative. There really is no hypocrisy or double standards.

You are taking the approach of Conservative, Reformed, Reconstruction, Humanistic, etc... Judaism.

Again, this is a solution looking for a problem.

Click to expand...

You are not looking at the Bible rationally. It would not tell people how they could and could not beat their slaves unless they could beat them. Remember the verse about how a slave owner was not to be punished if he beat a slave severely and it recovered after a day or two, though that used to be interpreted so that even if the slave lingered for a couple of days and then died he was not to be punished. Even with the more liberal interpretation it tells you that a slave owner is not to be punished for even harsh beating of slaves as long as they did not die. And losing the slave would qualify as a rather strong punishment.

Subduction Zone said:

You are not looking at the Bible rationally. It would not tell people how they could and could not beat their slaves unless they could beat them. Remember the verse about how a slave owner was not to be punished if he beat a slave severely and it recovered after a day or two, though that used to be interpreted so that even if the slave lingered for a couple of days and then died he was not to be punished. Even with the more liberal interpretation it tells you that a slave owner is not to be punished for even harsh beating of slaves as long as they did not die. And losing the slave would qualify as a rather strong punishment.

Click to expand...

We are talking passed each other, my friend.

I am not claiming that it is rational at all.

What you are describing is based on an outsiders perspective.

You are reading the words, but you are not reading them in the same manner as an Orthodox Jewish person who claims that The Old Testament is authoritative.

Because of this, even though what you are reading is English, we are not speaking the same language.

SkepticThinker said:

That says absolutely nothing about slavery at all, never mind anything about it being immoral.

Click to expand...

All men

That would include slaves.

I'm not reaching, you are willfully ignoring.

dybmh said:

We are talking passed each other, my friend.

I am not claiming that it is rational at all.

What you are describing is based on an outsiders perspective.

You are reading the words, but you are not reading them in the same manner as an Orthodox Jewish person who claims that The Old Testament is authoritative.

Because of this, even though what you are reading is English, we are not speaking the same language.

Click to expand...

I really do not care what excuses an Orthodox Jew of today would give for the past bad behavior of his people. One merely has to apply logic as to why those books were written the way that they were written.

Enoch07 said:

All men

That would include slaves.

I'm not reaching, you are willfully ignoring.

Click to expand...

It should have included slaves, but for some odd reason the supposed omniscient God never made that clear. In fact if one reads the Gospel it is clear that it does not have an anti-slavery stance, in fact it too appears pro-slavery if anything. From the Wiki article on slavery in the Bible:

"In Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22-24, 1Tim 6:1-2 and Titus 2:9-10, Saint Paul instruct slaves to obey their masters.[99][100][101][102] In Ephesians 6:9, Paul instructs masters to "do the same things to [their slaves]" as he had commanded slaves to do unto their masters, which is to "[r]ender service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord"[103][104] In 1Pet 2:18, Saint Peter also instructs slaves to obey their masters.[105] In Col 4:1 Paul instructs masters to "treat your slaves justly and fairly."[106] In Romans 1:1, Paul metaphorically calls himself a "slave of Christ Jesus,"[107] and later, in Romans 6:20-21, he writes about the metaphor of slavery to sin.[108] In Gal 3:27-29, Paul says that in the church there is "neither slave nor free person,...for you are all one in Christ Jesus."[109] In Revelation, two angels call themselves fellow slaves (coworkers) of Saint John."

The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia

Enoch07 said:

All men

That would include slaves.

I'm not reaching, you are willfully ignoring.

Click to expand...

At best it can be taken to mean "love your slave." But it doesn't say that slavery is immoral or wrong.
I'm still waiting for the part where God says that slavery is actually immoral and takes back all the instructions on how to obtain and own human beings as property.


1 Peter 2:18-19
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.