How do we deal with the concept of slavery in the Old Testament?

[Xeyed818]

I’m reading through Exodus 21, and it seems quite dark and unfair about everything, like how a man’s wife and children may not go free with him if she was provided to him by his master, and if he defies his master saying that he wishes to stay with them, then his ear is to be pierced with an awl and is to serve for life.

When a man beats a slave but he does not die from his injuries, he isn’t to be punished, “for he is his property.”
Isn’t that a little harsh?

I’ve already listened to commentaries on how violence in the Bible is to be interpreted as having no tolerance for sin, and that the wages of sin is death, and all the capital punishment prescribed in the Mosaic Law is placed upon Jesus, confronting all the evil of the world and taking it upon Himself (thanks to Father Barron for the commentary), but I’m trying to wrestle with this. I know there are punishments to mistreating slaves, but some of these just seem dark and unfair. Is there a further reason behind this all?

Came across the author last night and this title seemed to fit with this thread, so thought I’d pass it along.

archive.org/details/inquiryintoscrip00barn

An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery - Rev. Albert Barnes

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Exodus 21:20-21 is describing non-Jewish slaves, which is a different set of circumstances.

No, I will not let you get away with that. Get away with what? Add what is not there to try explain away the contradiction I pointed out.

Do you think I use the internet but am incapable of an internet search?

Here are NINETEEN translation of Exodus 21:20, none of which describe non-Jewish slaves.

Do you think I don’t do my due diligence? Even if you think that every single thing I’ve posted in this thread is wrong or misinterpreted, at least see that I’m thorough.

I did searches for that verse with the word “apologetics” and searches with that verse and the word “commentary”. Ignoring links that didn’t actually defend the verse and message boards I found numerous sites. Here are the ones which defended the verse but did not say one whit about that verse being for non-Hebrews slaves only:

choosinghats.org/2012/03/atheist-andrews-misreading-of-exodus-2120-21-on-beating-slaves/

apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1587

carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/slave-property

bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/ This one is great because it specifically describes the verses as protection for both Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves

christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=2&c=21&com=mhc

tektonics.org/TK-EXOD.html (I left this one in even though it doesn’t defend the verse because of how funny it is by defending everything not dealing with slavery.)

youthapologeticstraining.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-slavery-05-does-the-bible-say-its-ok-to-beat-your-slaves-episode-186/

evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/ot-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/ex-2121-are-slaves-persons-or-property/

jesusisgod316.blogspot.com/2013/01/exodus-21-laws-regarding-slavery.html

wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Slavery

studylight.org/commentaries/acc/view.cgi?book=ex&chapter=021

bibletrack.org/cgi-bin/bible.pl?incr=0&mo=2&dy=17

godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeexo21.htm

sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/exo021.htm

enduringword.com/commentaries/0221.htm

easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/exodus-19-40-lbw.htm

I found one single commentary that said the verse was for non-Jewish slaves only, from John Wesley:

biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/exodus/exodus-21.html

And he doesn’t detail why he thinks so. He just pulls it out of whole cloth.

So I’d be very interested how you claim a verse says what it doesn’t say, or I’m going to assume you’ve broken the 8th commandment to support your cause. I’ve spent almost 14,000 words prior to this post on this silly thread and I hate to think I’ve been lied to.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Here are NINETEEN translation of Exodus 21:20, none of which describe non-Jewish slaves.

Do you think I don’t do my due diligence? Even if you think that every single thing I’ve posted in this thread is wrong or misinterpreted, at least see that I’m thorough.

Here is what Rashi, the foremost Jewish commentator of all time (“commentator of commentators”):

“…When a man will strike his slave or his slavewoman.”: The verse speaks of a Canaanite slave. Or perhaps this is incorrect, and the verse speaks only with regard to a Hebrew servant? To teach us otherwise, the Torah says, “for he is his property.” Just as his property belongs to him forever, so too, the verse discusses a slave who belongs to him forever. Now, then, the Canaanite slave was included in, “one who strikes a man so that he dies,” why then is our verse necessary? But this verse comes and removes him from the general category of the laws of murder, to be judged by the law of “a day or two days,” in that if he did not die as a result of the blow of the master’s hand, but lingered for a 24 hour period, the master is acquitted."

This is directly from the Saperstein Edition of the Torah with Rashi’s commentary. Again, Rashi is the foremost Jewish commentator of all time.

When you quote from Jewish scripture, it helps to go directly to a reputable Jewish source.

You have one advantage over many of us here. In the New York/New Jersey area, there are more Orthodox Jews than perhaps anywhere in the country. Go ahead and pick up the phone and call your local Orthodox synagogue, and ask the rabbi to give you an interpretation of this verse.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Wait, stop right there. That is not necessarily what it means. Let’s look at the Bible as a whole. According to scripture God favors his people.

How so? The Canaanites are given a 400 year grace period. God liberates the Israelites from Egyptian slavery because they call out to him. Would they not be liberated if they did not call out to God? Numbers 14:22 states 10 judgement which befell Israel in the wilderness. This is referenced in the New by Paul in 1 Cor. 10. Thousands were killed. Only two of the original actually made it into the promised land. The rest died out marching around in the wilderness for 40 years. Combined with what you say here.

Scholar: But Adonai is our God, surely…

Rabbi: Oh, what? Did God not make the Egyptians? Did he not make their rivers and make their crops grow? If not him, then who? What? Some other God? But what did he make them for? To punish them? To starve, to frighten, to slaughter them? The people of Amalek, the people of Egypt, what was it like for them when Adonai turned against them? It was like this.

Today there was a selection, yes? When David defeated the Moabites, what did he do?

Judge: He made them lie on the ground in lines and he chose one to live and two to die.

Rabbi: We have become the Moabites. We are learning how it was for the Amalekites. They faced extinction at the hand of Adonai. They died for his purpose. They fell as we are falling. They were afraid as we are afraid. And what did they learn? They learned that Adonai, the Lord our God, our God, is not good. He is not good. He was not ever good. He was only on our side.

Where is the favor?

Even on-topic Hebrew slaves have advantages over non-Hebrew slaves.

Non Hebrew slaves won independence under Joroboam and went right back to the idol worship of their ancestors.

Considering the cruelty allowed by passages like in Exodus 21 he has no problem with cruelty, but a more logical dispassionate answer is that God liberated them from captivity not because of the cruelty enacted upon them but because they were his people.

Because of His promise to Abraham. Exod 1 clearly indicates the circumstances surrounding the liberation of Israel. Cruelty and abuse of power is surely in the mix.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Laws are not real or unreal. They either exist or don’t exist.

What? If laws are not real or unreal then what are they? If a cop pulls you over for speeding, are you going to tell him laws are not real or unreal? They do not exist for you even if they exist for him? Have to go. More later, maybe.

 

[clem456]

The question I keep coming back to is HOW do we read those passages in the context of Jesus Christ. What does that mean to you?

How does one square such a context with what is said and without ignoring passages or trying to pass off inaccurate word meanings?

As I noted before in several lengthy paragraphs that now seem wasted, there is more than one way to interpret a Biblical passage outside of its literal meaning. Show us the proper meaning and how one can come to dervie that this meaning is accurate.

It’s funny because I happened to look at the CAF thread called “Is the Bible True?” and Helpful Atheist in his last post to you is kind of having the same struggle in getting some clarity in your responses other than saying it’s not literal.

The responses are very clear. Each of the questions has been answered. So
The trouble is:
fundamentalism and not understanding what the words “literal” and “inspired” and “inerrant” even mean. The first and primary sense of Catholic scripture reading is the literal. All other senses are derived from the literal. Literal is not the same as fundamentalist. Everything written, not just scripture, has a literal sense. *Literal is not the same thing as historic or scientific accuracy. * Can you at least read and understand that??? Or are you going to continue to tell the world that Catholics believe in slavery, cause “it says so right there in the bible”. Strikes me as prejudice and intolerance.
And this is getting silly. I think you understand, you simply want to discredit the bible and Christianity for proposing things that we ourselves don’t propose or believe. Again, your view of scripture and church are as fundamentalist as any right wing Christian, you just happen to start with a different conclusion. Are we allowed to have beliefs? Can you respect them?

The two of you start from a conclusion and work backwards. You are fitting what Catholics believe into your conclusion. Now that’s great for atheism, but does not provide any basis for a meaningful discussion.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This is directly from the Saperstein Edition of the Torah with Rashi’s commentary. Again, Rashi is the foremost Jewish commentator of all time.

When you quote from Jewish scripture, it helps to go directly to a reputable Jewish source.

This site has a transliteral version of the Hebrew in the Bible, and that specific page is for Exodus 21. Now I don’t read Hebrew or speak it, and I am trusting that because it’s a literal translation that there is no bias in the site.

We start with Exodus 21:2 which includes the words eved (servant) iv’riy (Hebrew). It specifies Hebrews servants just as our English translations do. We cut to Exodus 21:20 and it just uses eved. It doesn’t specify Hebrew slaves, So now we go to the commentary that you quoted. It doesn’t dispute that Exodus 21:20 doesn’t signify Gentile slave, but because Exodus 21:21 says that the beating is ok because the slave is property that it must refer to Gentiles because the part in Exodus 21:21 talks about the slaves being property/money. That’s a strange conclusion to make, and one that most other commentators don’t agree with. Remember just because it’s an older Jewish commentator doesn’t mean he isn’t going in with his own biases.

It’s not surprising that you’ve chosen the outlier commentary that supports your position – ignoring that it’s trying to add to what is not there. That too is not surprising because when it comes to extracting meaning from the Bible adding meaning to things is practically necessary.

Where is the favor?

While it should be obvious based on what God is said to have done, but there is a point earlier in the scene that spells it out:

Rabbi: When the Lord thy God shall bring you into the promised land you shall cast out many nations before you, nations much greater and mightier than you are. You shall smite them and utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.

Inmate: It shows us his favor. We are his people.

I really suggest watching that scene. It’s powerful stuff.

What? If laws are not real or unreal then what are they? If a cop pulls you over for speeding, are you going to tell him laws are not real or unreal? They do not exist for you even if they exist for him? Have to go. More later, maybe.

If you’d read the whole thing you see I was explaining how there is a difference between a law and a legend surrounding a law. You claimed it was “convenient” that I claimed a story in Exodus wasn’t true when complaining about the rules about slavery in Exodus. I set you straight yet again how even if the story of the origins of those slavery laws weren’t true, the Israelites followed them.

The responses are very clear. Each of the questions has been answered.

No they haven’t. As I’ve explained before, because there are multiple ways to explain how a piece of text is not literal. You either will not do so or are incapable of doing so other than saying we should look to Jesus. That’s like answering, “How do we determine the best time to launch this rocket?” saying “With math!”. If you won’t do even the most basic of exegesis or any kind of explanation, then there is no point.

Are we allowed to have beliefs?

Sure. But I’m allowed to point out when they make no sense.

Can you respect them?

I respect your rights to have those beliefs but I won’t respect the beliefs themselves if they don’t add up or can’t be explained. I’m still trying to understand how Exodus 21 is not a misquote yet went through an interpretation by the author.

The two of you start from a conclusion and work backwards. You are fitting what Catholics believe into your conclusion. Now that’s great for atheism, but does not provide any basis for a meaningful discussion.

Meaningful discussion means backing up assertions. Hopefully you’ll be able to do that in the other thread.

Well all, I think I’m done with this topic at this point. It’s time consuming and fruitless. My patience is not that of a younger man. I hope there is someone who has been watching this thread or later stumbles on it and sees the lengths to go to try and defend the indefensible allowing of slavery and cruelty within that practice. Don’t let people fool you by repeatedly stating “Ignore the fact that it says that, we know that it really means this.”

I’m not looking to get people to convert but I want people to approach things forthrightly and honestly. For example, I love my country but I don’t turn a blind eye to its actions in the past and its actions now. In the same way the best faith is an honest faith, not one riddled with hamfisted excuses. Thank you for your time.

 

[clem456]

No they haven’t. As I’ve explained before, because there are multiple ways to explain how a piece of text is not literal. You either will not do so or are incapable of doing so other than saying we should look to Jesus. That’s like answering, “How do we determine the best time to launch this rocket?” saying “With math!”. If you won’t do even the most basic of exegesis or any kind of explanation, then there is no point.

Sure. But I’m allowed to point out when they make no sense.

Yes of course there are multiple ways of interpreting a passage. You simply want this passage to have a meaning for us it does not have. That’s not a matter of understanding a passage and it’s interpretation, it’s a matter of forcing your point of view on the passage, and forcing it on us. You are of course entitled to your point of view, but we do not share your reading of scripture here.
It is our bible after all. It is not something you give any credence to. Not a problem, that’s your belief.

What you are doing is akin to me claiming that you and other atheists believe in murder because of things that other atheists have done and written in the past. Now, you can claim that you don’t have a bible that recounts these millions murders committed by atheist Stalin and proposes it for your belief, but by your logic, we can take what happened as recounted in history and spread the blame to you, and your beliefs.

That doesn’t seem fair, does it?

 

[Ignatius]

I’m reading through Exodus 21, and it seems quite dark and unfair about everything, . . . ?

Thinking anachronistically will only lead to confusion and error. To properly understand, we must look at the world and the situation as it actually was. As with All sins, God meets us (or in this case, our ancestors) where we are and begins working on us. For example at the time of Moses the normal response of a tribe when one of theirs was injured or killed by a member of another tribe was to go and kill every man, woman and child of that tribe. So, to begin mitigating that, God commanded that they could only take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In otherwords, a proportional response. As time went on and they were able to accept more, He eventually commanded them to Love even their enemies. You see, God is very wise, He does what will actually work.

 

[Achilles6129]

Thinking anachronistically will only lead to confusion and error. To properly understand, we must look at the world and the situation as it actually was. As with All sins, God meets us (or in this case, our ancestors) where we are and begins working on us. For example at the time of Moses the normal response of a tribe when one of theirs was injured or killed by a member of another tribe was to go and kill every man, woman and child of that tribe. So, to begin mitigating that, God commanded that they could only take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In otherwords, a proportional response. As time went on and they were able to accept more, He eventually commanded them to Love even their enemies. You see, God is very wise, He does what will actually work.

So you believe that the Creator of the universe is bound by the cultural limitations of the time? This is strange because over and over again the Torah says it’s straight from God and not man.

 

[StGerardMajella]

That’s a strange conclusion to make, and one that most other commentators don’t agree with. Remember just because it’s an older Jewish commentator doesn’t mean he isn’t going in with his own biases.

It’s not surprising that you’ve chosen the outlier commentary that supports your position – ignoring that it’s trying to add to what is not there. That too is not surprising because when it comes to extracting meaning from the Bible adding meaning to things is practically necessary.

That’s just a single commentator. There are more that concur with Rashi. Here is John Gill’s commentary (Gill was a prominent Baptist minister):

“And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod,… A Canaanitish servant or maid, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi (i.e., Rashi); and that only with a rod for the correction of them, and not with a sword or any such destroying weapon, which would seem as though he intended to kill…”

Canaanite refers to non-Hebrew slaves. We can agree to disagree, as I can go on citing additional commentators supporting my view ad infinitum. And, if you ever do decide to speak with a local Orthodox Jewish rabbi as I suggested, I am sure he would also support my references cited.

Regardless, slaves were not to be murdered by their masters. If so, the master faced the death penalty if the slave died immediately. This differs from other countries at the time, where slaves could be murdered without challenge. The Mosaic code loosened the rules in favor of the slave.

So, while you personally may find the Creator abhorrent, the laws and regulations set down by the Creator regarding Hebrew slaves are most lenient and rather compassionate.

 

[clem456]

So you believe that the Creator of the universe is bound by the cultural limitations of the time? This is strange because over and over again the Torah says it’s straight from God and not man.

God is not bound by cultural limitations.
Cultures have their fulfillment in Christ, so any cultural “coloring” of a text has to be reconciled with the Gospel. It’s also good to keep in mind that scripture is not straight from God. God does not give us a completed book. Scripture is a collaboration between God and human beings.

It cannot be in God’s nature to command slavery (as we conceive it) in the OT, and then be opposed to it in the NT.
As you point out: God is not bound by culture, by human language, by human understanding.

 

[Achilles6129]

God is not bound by cultural limitations.

Totally agree.

It’s also good to keep in mind that scripture is not straight from God. God does not give us a completed book. Scripture is a collaboration between God and human beings.

Going to have to disagree here.

It cannot be in God’s nature to command slavery (as we conceive it) in the OT, and then be opposed to it in the NT.

That God commands slavery in the Old Testament is certain:

“10 “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall [f]offer it terms of peace. 11 If it [g]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.” Deut. 20:10-11 (NASB)

Here’s the meaning and outline of the Biblical usage of “forced”:

blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4522&t=NASB

In regards to the second part of your sentence, I’d like to see where in the NT it says that God is opposed to slavery. Next, I’d like to point out that slavery “as you conceive it” and the slavery God commands in the OT may be different things. I have my reasons for believing that the slavery God commands is justified that I don’t want to get into at this particular point in time because of time constraints. However, I would like to know (I haven’t been following this entire thread) if you believe that slavery in the OT commanded by God is just and also if you believe that it’s the same as slavery in modern times.

 

[clem456]

Totally agree.

Going to have to disagree here.

That God commands slavery in the Old Testament is certain:

“10 “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall [f]offer it terms of peace. 11 If it [g]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.” Deut. 20:10-11 (NASB)

Here’s the meaning and outline of the Biblical usage of “forced”:

blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4522&t=NASB

In regards to the second part of your sentence, I’d like to see where in the NT it says that God is opposed to slavery. Next, I’d like to point out that slavery “as you conceive it” and the slavery God commands in the OT may be different things. I have my reasons for believing that the slavery God commands is justified that I don’t want to get into at this particular point in time because of time constraints. However, I would like to know (I haven’t been following this entire thread) if you believe that slavery in the OT commanded by God is just and also if you believe that it’s the same as slavery in modern times.

In the first place, God cannot contradict his own revealed nature, given the fullness of revelation in Christ. God is unchanging.
We don’t really know the circumstances of “slavery” referred to in these passages. The scriptures attribute slavery to God’s command. A 6 day creation is also attributed to God’s command.
This is the trouble we get into when we force the scriptures to rigidly conform to modern language and meanings things that were passed down and recorded over centuries of time, and were written with ancient understandings. Is there a dome over the sky?

Scripture *might say *that God commanded various things that seem contradictory with his revealed nature. The ban is one instance, which is God commanding killing, even the murder of innocent non-combatants. Those passage must be read in light of the Gospel, not in a fundamentalist way. Fundamentalism attempts to rob the scriptures of inspiration. The meaning of these passages cannot contradict the fullness of Christian revelation in Jesus Christ.
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
Sections 42 and 44