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

[clem456]

Hey, just a quick note: As more people chime in on the thread and as the word count keeps growing ever larger it’s going to take me longer than before to respond back. Please bear with me.

Hugs and kisses.

Hugs and kisses back at you Mike.
Just keep in mind that we are not starting this thought process from the assumption that ancient biblical texts are factually and historically true in a literalist fundamentalist sense.
And Catholics do not assume that modern translations and senses of words (like the word “slavery”) transcend centuries of times and cultures with complete unerring accuracy.
That’s not how we believe inspiration works.

Other churches may swing that way, and your objections might find more fertile ground with those who insist that “yes indeed, God did endorse slavery cause it says so right there in the bible, in the King’s English”. With those people, you have a good argument.

Let me add that the conception of god that has been presented to you is a false one, so you should follow your conscience and reject this god. If this was the conception of god that had been witnessed to me over my life, I would be atheist as well.
So, I don’t think anyone here begrudges your beliefs, but simply we are saying, we do not recognize the god you proclaim. We do not worship the same god that has been presented to you.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Touché.
But you help me make my point nonetheless because atheists can twist scripture too.

Yes they can. That’s why we need to work with what the scripture says and if someone suggests something other than its plain meaning it needs to be properly and thoroughly shown. I find it’s much more often that the Christian gets mushmouthed trying to explain scripture than the non-believer.

OK. So you presumably think that, (according to your reading of the bible,) God doesnt share that view.

I argue that He does, but that because slavery was a practical reality He acknowledged it by way of juridic laws and regulations which were designed to ‘manage’ the problem in a harm minimization fashion rather than giving an immediate, all-encompassing command prohibiting any/all forms of slavery/servitude - which would have meant that Hebrews could neither sell themselves into slavery, nor take part in the practice of slave ownership. This would NOT have made one iota of difference to the institution of slavery elsewhere in every other pagan country of biblical antiquity. (IMHO) Thus, the only people not owning (caring for) slaves, had that been the case, would have been those ancient Hebrews with their biblical ethics about the sacred worth of human life.

To that I have to say, so what if the rules that God gave to the Hebrews would only affect Hebrews? Many people claim horrific things about the other nations in the area occurred – sometimes on a widespread basis. For instance, there are claims of massive human sacrifice in those neighboring nations. God didn’t try to ‘manage’ the problem of human sacrifice with his people. It didn’t matter to those other nations, but that’s ok. It speaks against what is wrong. Slavery should have been the same, but it wasn’t. What we do know is that the argument stating a law against slavery wouldn’t help other nations, so therefore he made a law allowing it, doesn’t hold water.

I’m afraid I disagree and see no hope for persuasion in either dierction on this matter.

I think we found the one thing we can agree on.

You claim that God doesnt speak emphatically against slavery and that His slavery regulations amount to approval of the practice. I say that if God was on the side of slave owners He wouldnt impose ANY regulations on how slaves ought to be treated.

As we see from the Amerlioration Act of 1798 and The South Carolina Slave Codes people who were in favor of slavery would sometimes impose regulations on how slaves ought to be treated. (For the latter, start at part XXXVII). So the idea that God must not want slavery because he regulates it has been proven false.

Moreover, I dont seem to be able to make any headway with you insofar as my claim that God-fearing, Torah-observant Israelites (who happened to own slaves) would have balanced their treatment of those people in light of scripture which you seem to think is irrelevant to slavery.

My concern is not with the actions of the people in that time. Were there some slave owners then and there that were relatively kind to their human property? Likely. But my concern is with the God character. He is the one that is said to have determined the range of acceptable and proper behavior. Telling his people to be nice doesn’t in any way make up for telling them that they can abuse the people they possess. If they’re nice, so be it. If not, no punishment (probably because he’s far more concerned finding out who’s picking up sticks on his day off). A father doesn’t tell his daughter’s date that he should treat her nice, but don’t worry about it if he smacks her around some. Allowing certain disgusting acts trumps asking nicely for kind acts.

I cant really ‘complain’ about your phrasing. I just find it problematic because, if slavery as it was in the time of the bible, really was totally and completely immoral and the moral equivalent of stealing a persons labor without payment, then it really would amount to pure greed and sin. And you, ironically, are arguing that God didnt perceive this and neither did the Israelites - well the ones who owned slaves.

That’s not irony – even in the Alanis Morisette misuse of the word.

Isnt it more likely that, in the historical context, what they called ‘slavery’ in many/most cases did have some mutual benefit between slave and slave owner? And that to the extent that God “supported” it as you say, the practice wasnt always done for pure greed?

You’re the one who introduced the idea of greed and how we know that God was against cruel slavery because it was greedy and God hates greed. I’m of the opinion that it’s wrong regardless of the greediness of the slave owner. Some were likely greedy and some likely did it because it was just a normal thing one did to make life less harsh (for the slave owner). As I noted to you before other professions like farming have their share of greed.

If you have two groups of slave owners;

• one that is driven by greed (the love of money)
• and another that views slavery as an unfortunate reality - a necessary evil - but better than the alternative …can you not see that God might view those two differently?

What is the “unfortunate reality”, that caused children to be sold or born as slaves? What is the “necessary evil” in brutally beating slaves to death? Why was infinitely kowledgable and infinitely benevolent God limited in issuing laws that would prevent such atrocities from occurring?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Again, you are taking the text completely out of context. Nowhere does the text make any inference that the Jewish slave loves this second, non-Jewish wife. You are placing your own values and interpretation into the text.

First, the Jewish slave is already married to a Jewish wife. The “wife” you are referring to here is a second, non-Jewish wife, of which the Jewish slave has little to no affection.

The Jewish slave has no attachments to the non-Jewish wife, and any offspring as a result of this arrangement become the property of the master. The Jewish slave is, however, affectionate and attached to his first wife, who is Jewish. At the seventh year, the Jewish slave returns to his Jewish wife - the first one, not the second (non-Jewish) wife from when he was a slave.

There is no hardship here for the Jewish slave in this case. And this case is also highly rare and unusual in another sense - This particular instance is only for a Jewish slave who was caught stealing. And the Jewish slave has to already be married. These conditions are not imposed on Jewish slaves that were single, unmarried.

Here is what I see wrong just off the top of my head:

1. You are assuming that the male slave that gains the wife while in captivity is already married.
2. You are assuming that the wife that a male slave gains while in captivity is not Jewish. As we see immediately after the blackmail passage are instructions from God on how a Jewish father can sell his Jewish daughter as a slave. While in some cases that female slave is given to a son as a bride, it more than allows for them to remain permanently as a servant (both as a maid and sexual servant). The only thing that master can’t do in those case is reduce her food supply if he gets other female slaves and he can’t sell her to foreign nations. So, yes it’s quite likely that a female slave given to a male Hebrew slave was Jewish.
3. You assume repeatedly that the male Hebrew slave has no affection for the slave if she happens not to be Jewish. First of all, aren’t we today well aware of couples that cross racial, religious, and social boundaries? Those couples existed then as they do now, they were just ostracized more for it. Second, even if we make the false assumption that Hebrew men at the time preferred Hebrew women, can we not take into account the hardships that come from the brutality of slavery and that one could accept and cherish having a woman to be there (even if’s one they would normally overlook)?
4. You make only a passing reference to the children created by such unions, stating that they remained property of the slave owner. You don’t discuss at all the possible feelings and attachments that he might (and likely) had for them. You’re saying that there is no way a slave would give up his freedom to remain with his children.
5. You claim that Exodus 21:4-5 are not literal in nature but are way to demonstrate God’s pushing the slaves to freedom. If so, are we to assume that two sentences before that (“But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.”) is also not literal? It’s all the same fragment of the same convesation detail rules for male Hebrew slaves. The first part is a set of rules and the second part is a fanciful notion showing how God wants slaves to be free.

You have to remember that the whole story of Exodus and the Torah itself is about freedom. Why the seventh year? It refers back to the Sabbath - the seventh day of complete rest from labor. The same goes with slavery - In this case, we see the Creator outlining laws of slavery for the Jewish people - His Chosen People - that incorporates this concept of liberation and freedom.

Something that advocates for the absolute denial of liberation and freedom can not incorporate the concepts of liberation and freedom. Well, except for in an Orwellian world where War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

How convenient, now it is a tale as is Exodus and slave regulation is treated as real. One example is all i needed given your statement.

Laws are not real or unreal. They either exist or don’t exist. Whether the Gibeon story is real, or the story of the Hebrews’ exodus out of Egypt was real doesn’t negate the fact that the laws in places like Exodus were real and followed. This is not a matter of convenience just basic common sense.

Which presupposes all were forced into slavery. If that is the case then you need to prove it. You don’t know how many were forced or how many saw it as a valid option given their circumstances.

You’re absolutely right that I was wrong when I said “drug use is self-imposed unlike slavery” when it would have been accurate to instead say most slavery. Still, in that same post I pointed out that you were focusing on slaves aquired in wartime and not the ones that were sold or bought.

Also ignored is the fact Joshua rescues Gibeon when he really did not have to. Why? Because they were under his care and he did the right thing. You fixate on certain points and ignore everything else and anybody can tell you that is not proper hermeneutics. Anyone can select quote from Scripture to justify anything. It is called eisegesis or reading bias into scripture. Agenda reading.

I address this matter below.

He did. Another poster pointed out Job 31:13-15, which presupposes accountability to God for how we treat others. Proper use of authority. All this was ignored. Church
people opposed and supported slavery based on the bible in America. There were legal arguments for and against.

I think you hit on something noting that churched people used the Bible to oppose and support slavery. The people on the side favoring slavery have numerous parts that give great detail on how God wants them to own slaves. The people on the side against slavery point to the call to be nice to one other. What could the church-going abolitionists not point to? A single passage that says not to own slaves.

On the subject on the snippet from Job, who is talking in Job 31:13-15? Job. Who is talking in Exodus 21? God. First let’s assume those passages conflict. If so, who do we follow? God. Second, let’s assume those passages don’t conflict. I would say it is much more likely that God believes justice to a slave is different than justice to a free man, as opposed to whitewashing all of Exodus 21 because Job says to be nice to slaves. Remember the passage I quoted earlier about Jesus using the beating of slaves as an example of proper punishment for someone even if they don’t know what they are doing is wrong?

I would say going down and rescuing Gibeon was generous given the situation as a whole. Not a little less cruel.

That’s one story. I’m talking about the silly general defense that comes up anytime slavery in the Bible is discussed. It says that yes slaves in the Bible could be beaten severely, could be raped, and have their children become slaves too — but they get a day off every Saturday! The defenders say it’s slightly better than slaves of other contemporary nations, so stop complaining how cruel Biblical slavery was and assess its morality relative to others.

You mentioned days off, that’s just like my analogy earlier about a place that would allow rape, just not on Wednesdays.

Rape was illegal in those days, slavery was
legal.

It’s an analogy. Allowing slavery on every day but Satuday is the same as allowing rape every day but Wednesday. And let’s not kid
ourselves. Daughters sold into slavery were raped. Numbers 31:18 also called for rape.

Those type of things could happen under the Romans and the Greeks where slaves had zero rights. Not ancient Israel. Slaves in Rome could be killed at any time by their owners. With females and young boys it could be sex on demand. But you are not interested in that, are you.

Again, it’s moral relativism to say that God asked for less cruelty to his slave than those of the Romans and the Greeks. A rapist who wears a condom is less evil than one who doesn’t but he’s still a rapist and still evil.

I don’t see Exodus as history.

Yet treat slave regulation in Exodus as real. How convenient.

I already went over this but I’ll try to explain it in another way. If a society believes a man in a cave once told them a set of rules we can still judge those rules even if there never was a man in a cave. In fact we can even judge the man in the cave as we would any fictional character. The Hebrews who had heard the story of how God had led them out of Egypt and told them in the wilderness what was good and bad believed it to be true. Whether or not the story of the Hebrews leaving Egypt was true or whether the story of God telling Moses the laws was true doesn’t matter. Anyone, Christian or not, can look at those rules in Exodus and judge whether they were good or not. This is no different than a Christain assessing the morality of what Joseph Smith claims to have transcribed from the golden plates even if there were really no golden plates.

Right you are the moral authority. Atheists now the moral authorities folks.

No, I never said that. When I was discussing the morality of non-believers several posts back I brought up the question of what happens if a person knows something is wrong but that person’s source of morality says it’s not. When that person’s source of morality is a god and the person’s sense of self is caught up in worshipping that god it means that person then must defend the indefensible. This is a strong moral advantage that many religious lack.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

OK
Let’s hash this awkwardly-worded question out once and for all before we carry on.

“Why do people feel that God was bound to take into account the actions of other cultures regarding slavery when he made numerous restrictions to the Jews
that were unique to his people?”

Here is my rebuttal of the initial argument given to the OP

Argument: God had to consider that slavery was prevalent at the time he gave the laws to his people on slavery.

1. God gave a series of laws to his people.
2. Some of those laws were unique to the Jews.
3. God tells his people not to concern themselves with the ways of other nations.
4. Based on 1 and 2 and 3 God does not have to concern himself with what other nations did in giving laws to his people.
   Conclusion: The argument fails based on 4.

Your response fixated on the word “bound” and not on any portion of the argument that I’ve spelled out in at least three different ways now. You claim that God is lord of all nations and wasn’t focusing on the Israelites despite only speaking with the Israelites and giving laws unique to them.

As far as the other nations, I’ll recommend to you (like I do with lightbeamrider in a later post) the movie “God On Trial”. It talks near the end about how God had the Israelites interact with their neighbors.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

God does not endorse slavery. And before you proffer your fundamentalist assertion “it says so right there in the bible”, please educate yourself on how the Catholic Church reads scripture. There were several posts which referred you to material, but here we are making the same arguments days later. What is there to discuss if you don’t understand those you want to disagree with?

I undrstand completely how the Church says it reads scripture; but you are throwing up your hands and saying it’s not literal and that’s that. The Church teaches that parts of the Bible are not literal and are allegory/figurative.

It’s that second part that I’ve been asking you to explain yet you haven’t attempted to do so. Show what all those various passages that talk about owning slaves, and buying slaves, and beating slaves mean in a figurative sense. Don’t stop at saying that it’s not literal and then do none of the work after that.

And let’s be clear that there is more than one way to read a section of the Bible in a figurative sense. As an example let’s take the various passages in the New Testament about certain signs that everyone would see and that they would occur “before this generation passes away”. Now the passages can not be taken as literal. The Catholic Church agrees as do other christian denominations. The trick is that different groups interpret those passages in different ways. The Catholic Church treats those passages as having occurred spiritually and within the lifetimes of the people Jesus was speaking to. That’s a form of preterism. Now there are several different variations of preterism, and it’s really not on-topic other than to say there are multiple forms. Besides preterism some people interpret those passages by defining generation so that it refers to a time in the future. That’s call futurism and just like preterism there are different forms of that.

Why am I talking about all of this? I just want to show that saying something is not literal does NOT lead to a single non-literal meaning. By saying that it’s not literal you are then responsible to describe which of many possible non-literal meanings is the correct one. Not only that, but your non-literal meaning has to make sense as part of the whole and not conflict with the meanings of other parts of scripture.

And that brings me to two questions I asked you earlier in thread which are still waiting for an answer:

1. If we take Exodus 21 as being figurative, then each item in that chapter must also be figurative (since it is all part of a single conversation listing rules for the Hebrews to follow). In such a case, what are the figurative meanings to those parts of Exodus 21 that look to be simple tort law?
2. As noted earlier Exodus 20 through the first part of Exodus 24 is a single conversation of God speaking to Moses. In that conversation are the Ten Commandments. If we try to massage the meaning of those slavery passages in Exodus 21 by saying that they are not literal, how do you deal with the fact that the Ten Commandments must also not be literal?

Your reading of scripture is fudamentalist (I just find that odd in a somewhat humorous way). It allows for no reading that contradicts your own literalist reading, hence we go round and round in circles.

The ball is in your court and has been for some time. Describe to us here how those passages work in a non-literal way, and why we should assume your figurative meaning is the one we should follow and not the literal meaning.
Show us all how your non-literal meaning doesn’t raise further problems when dealing with other parts of scripture.

I find that the Christian method starts with taking everything literally. Then as problems come about certain passages are deemed as allegorical. When even the allegorical meaning shows the creator in a poor light often the next step is to say that what God said in the Bible wasn’t really said by God (Remember when I was told that Exodus 21 was not a misquote yet was somehow filtered through the author even though the whole thing is a quote?)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Your contempt for God prevents you from looking at it dispassionately and as a whole. God liberated the Israelites from cruel Egyptian slavery. That means God does not endorse cruel types.

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

There was a TV movie a few years back called “God On Trial”. Don’t be scared off by the title. Christians, Jews, and non-believers have praised the movie. It’s based on a story by Elie Weisel (it might be true or it might be apocraphyl) about Jews in a concentration camp putting God on trial as to whether he has broken their covenant. There is an impassioned speech near the end from a rabbi captive talking about the Israelites interacted with those of other nations and the cruelty God had them apply to those nations. In one part:

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.

The part I’m referring to is about ten minutes long and can find it here but I’d recommend seeing the whole movie (here) so you’re not just getting the one perspective.

But I think it shows that it’s simply untrue to say that God is against cruelty, including cruel types of slavery.

It is not all that hard to understand if even in theory. Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers and ends up saving many from the consequences of famine including his family. There is reconciliation with his family. The bible God works within the fallen system to bring about results.

So a bad thing happens to a good person which leads that person to do something good, thus we shouldn’t call the bad thing not-so-bad? This is like when Hurricane Katrina happened and former first lady Barbara Bush said “And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.” Things like that are so tin-eared. Slavery and the ending of slavery led the spotlight to men like Frederick Douglass, but that doesn’t make slavery in America good or even partially good. Unintended consequences of an evil act (like with the Joseph tale) don’t negate its morality. And a single or even a handful of examples of positive consequences don’t mean that the cost was worth the benefit.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You have it backwards. Your contempt for God drives you to interpret Scripture in a manner which vilifies God. Your methods employed is no different than taking a few verses out of the Old to justify killing so called witches.

That’s not literal either? Does the Bible ever mean what it says?

Really, the only ones who agree with your warped interpretations are like minded atheists and rabid KKKers who you are in bed with.

Let’s be careful about associating atheists with the frigging KKK. There’s a reason why the latter burn crosses and not darwin fish.
!!!

Both you and them believe the Bible God endorses slavery.

Guilt by incredibly tenuous association. I believe the God of the Bible endorses slavery for much the same reason I believe Franklin Delano Roosevelt endorsed the New Deal.

The abuse of a thing does not invalidate its legit use.

I agree. The thing we differ on is what is and is not a legitimite use of slavery.

Proper hermeneutics is not invalided by abusive agenda driven conclusions. Nobody here believes in a God which endorses slavery, force rape or manslaughter. These claims are outrageous.

Yet true. The outrageousness comes from the lengths one goes to say otherwise.

Slavery, force rape and manslaughter are the results of man going it alone apart from God.

Slavery:

1. God tells his people to purchase slaves from other nations.
2. The Hebrews that did so were believers in Jehovah, Adonia, Yahweh, the god of the Bible.
3. Yet somehow they were going alone apart from God???

Forced rape:

1. God tells his people to conquer nations and to kill about the virgin women to keep for themselves (forcibly rape).
2. The Hebrews that did so were believers in Jehovah, Adonia, Yahweh, the god of the Bible.
3. Yet somehow they were going alone apart from God???

Manslaughter:

1. God tells his people that they can beat their slaves, and it’s ok for them to die by said beatings so long as the beating and death aren’t on the same day.
2. The Hebrews that did so were believers in Jehovah, Adonia, Yahweh, the god of the Bible.
3. Yet somehow they were going alone apart from God???

That means they are the result of practical atheism which assumes no accountability to God and can treat others any way they like.

Accountability means doing what is asked and accepting punishment when not doing so. How does one who listens to what God says, understands that their acts are approved by God and will garner NO punishment acting like “practical atheists”? Acting like God doesn’t exist at least allows that person to say that maybe this God character is sadistic.

Pharaoh was a practical atheist relative to God depicted in the Bible.

Are you a practical atheist relative to Allah in the Quran? I know the answer is going to be something akin to, “That’s different! My God is totally real!”

He assumed he had all power and could do what he wanted with no consequences. He did not look out for the best interest of those Hebrews under his care. Nor did he look out for the best interest of the Egyptians making them complicit in the crime of infant murder.

According to the tales, God did equal if not more infant murder than Pharoah.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Since God is the Lord of Life and Death, he can do as he pleases with his creation. Including uproot them, judge them, send them to eternal punishment etc.

“O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
Rom9:20-21

“The potter also tempering soft earth, with labour fashioneth every vessel for our service, and of the same clay he maketh both vessels that are for clean uses, and likewise such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of these vessels, the potter is the judge.”
Wis 15:7

“Woe to him that gainsayeth his maker, a sherd of the earthen pots: shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it: What art thou making, and thy work is without hands?”
Isa 45:9

“Cannot I do with you as this potter, saith the Lord? behold as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.”
Jer 18:6

Death is something most people fear, but the fact is, in the eyes of God, we don’t merit life. Life is a gift. It belongs to him. He need not sustain his creation for moment longer. It is a creator/creature relationship that will develop through revelation into a father/son relationship.

Now when it comes to things like slavery and genocide found in the bible, it needs to be understood that morality was slowly introduced through revelation. It was revealed according to the capacity of the nations to digest it. And as such, these things were tolerated because the nations were incapable of being moral because of the societies they created, and the laws they made, and the false gods they followed.

PS: God destroyed all of mankind with the Flood except for the eight people on the ark and he made an eternal hell. So really there should be no argument over the authenticity of all the other difficult passages happening from my perspective. Mystery is something integral to the scriptures because an infinite God cannot be fully understood by a finite intellect. Are the passages difficult. Yes. Can they be fully explained, probably not until we meet him.

 

[clem456]

I undrstand completely how the Church says it reads scripture; but you are throwing up your hands and saying it’s not literal and that’s that. The Church teaches that parts of the Bible are not literal and are allegory/figurative.

It’s that second part that I’ve been asking you to explain yet you haven’t attempted to do so. Show what all those various passages that talk about owning slaves, and buying slaves, and beating slaves mean in a figurative sense. Don’t stop at saying that it’s not literal and then do none of the work after that.

Explain what?
The problem is you want these passages to have a profound literal meaning when they might not.

Much of the bible is simply history. There are reams of details. These need to be read in the context of the whole. The bible as a whole is the story of salvation. The parts add up to a whole. Fundamentalism takes these passages out of context. One of the threads running through the whole of scripture (in fact the main thread) is that God is faithful to his people through all the centuries of sinfulness and stupidity of his people.

The bottom line is, slavery as we know it is incompatible with Christian belief, as expressed in Jesus Christ. All these passages must be read in that context.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Are you a practical atheist relative to Allah in the Quran?

Yup.

 

[StGerardMajella]

1. You are assuming that the male slave that gains the wife while in captivity is already married.

Read Exodus 21:3: “If he shall arrive by himself, he shall leave by himself.” This means that an unmarried Jewish slave is not imposed upon with a non-Jewish maidservant during his tenure as a slave. It’s right there in the text itself.

You are assuming that the wife that a male slave gains while in captivity is not Jewish. As we see immediately after the blackmail passage are instructions from God on how a Jewish father can sell his Jewish daughter as a slave. While in some cases that female slave is given to a son as a bride, it more than allows for them to remain permanently as a servant (both as a maid and sexual servant). The only thing that master can’t do in those case is reduce her food supply if he gets other female slaves and he can’t sell her to foreign nations. So, yes it’s quite likely that a female slave given to a male Hebrew slave was Jewish.

First, you can’t mix and match. Exodus 21:7 is a completely separate discourse altogether, and unrelated to Exodus 21:4.

But let’s discuss Exodus 21:7. In this case, a Jewish father is permitted to “sell” his daughter before she reaches puberty to a master because this sale should result in the marriage to the master, or the master’s son. The Jewish father in this case is destitute, and in extreme poverty.

If the marriage does not occur, it is regarded as a betrayal of the girl. If one of them chooses to marry her, the purchase price is considered betrothal money by which she is consecrated to her husband. In normal circumstances, this exercise of betrothal would not be done this way, but in this case it is an opportunity to provide for her future that might not otherwise be available due to the extreme poverty of the father. If the girl is not betrothed, the girl goes free without payment at the end of six years, at the advent of the Jubilee (every 49 years), or when her puberty begins.

As you can see, this is a completely separate arrangement from a married Jewish male slave being imposed upon to marry a non-Jewish female slave as described in the earlier passage.

You assume repeatedly that the male Hebrew slave has no affection for the slave if she happens not to be Jewish. First of all, aren’t we today well aware of couples that cross racial, religious, and social boundaries? Those couples existed then as they do now, they were just ostracized more for it. Second, even if we make the false assumption that Hebrew men at the time preferred Hebrew women, can we not take into account the hardships that come from the brutality of slavery and that one could accept and cherish having a woman to be there (even if’s one they would normally overlook)?

The Jewish slave is already married to a Jewish wife. This second wife is temporary and non-Jewish. You cannot impose today’s societal norms about interracial marriages into an ancient text.

Jewish slaves were not brutalized. Leviticus 25:43 forbids it: “You shall not subjugate him through hard labor - you shall fear your G-d.”

There are only two (2) ways in which a male Jew could become a slave. He can either sell himself as an escape from extreme poverty, or he may be a thief who is sold by the court system to raise funds to pay his victims. The case described in earlier passage, Exodus 21:4, is the latter.

You make only a passing reference to the children created by such unions, stating that they remained property of the slave owner.

The male Jewish slave is already married to a Jewish woman, and well aware that the offspring of this temporary union to a non-Jewish slave will not be his. Again, there is no hardship.

In the rare and unusual circumstance where the slave wants to remain with the non-Jewish slave, despite the court’s and the master’s persuasion to the contrary (not to mention the persuasion of his existing Jewish wife!), he may remain a slave for life (or at least until the master dies). He is persuaded to choose freedom, instead. That’s not blackmail - It’s the decision of the slave.

You claim that Exodus 21:4-5 are not literal in nature but are way to demonstrate God’s pushing the slaves to freedom.

I never said the rules weren’t literal. I am saying that you are misinterpreting them and need to put the text into proper context and interpretation.

Something that advocates for the absolute denial of liberation and freedom can not incorporate the concepts of liberation and freedom.

The whole story of the Exodus is all about freedom from oppression. We must not be reading the same book.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Mike from NJ
Are you a practical atheist relative to Allah in the Quran?

Yup.

The Allah in the Quran (according to Islam) is the same entity Who spoke to Job, Jonah, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Lot, Joseph and Mary, Isaac and Ishmael, Adam and Eve…

At what point do we become ‘atheists’ in respect to this omnicient, omnipotent, eternal, monotheistic divinity and Creator of all that is seen and unseen?

Yes, Islam, Judaism and Christianty have some very substantial differences. But if you line them up together and compare them with REAL atheism, these religions are practically identical.

 

[lightbeamrider]

The Allah in the Quran (according to Islam) is the same entity Who spoke to Job, Jonah, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Lot, Joseph and Mary, Isaac and Ishmael, Adam and Eve…

At what point do we become ‘atheists’ in respect to this omnicient, omnipotent, eternal, monotheistic divinity and Creator of all that is seen and unseen?

Yes, Islam, Judaism and Christianty have some very substantial differences. But if you line them up together and compare them with REAL atheism, these religions are practically identical.

Was not addressing real atheism. Was addressing Mikes post spec., practical atheism and Islam.
atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Practical-Atheism.htm

Practical atheism is defined as disbelief in or rejection of gods as a matter of practice if not necessarily theory. This definition of practical atheism focuses on the idea that one disregards belief in gods and the existence of gods in day-to-day living but doesn’t necessarily reject the existence of gods when it comes to professed beliefs.

The Old is viewed through the lens of the New.

Beloved:
Who is the liar?
Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ.
Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.
Anyone who denies the Son does not have the Father,
but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.

catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/islam-and-the-crucifixion

 

[Lion_IRC]

Oh yes, I understand that.

But I’m pretty sure Mike from NJ was doing that old *schtick * about
…we’re all atheists but I just believe in one less god than you do.

Muhammad would claim to believe in the same God as Abraham did.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The problem is you want these passages to have a profound literal meaning when they might not.

Much of the bible is simply history. There are reams of details. These need to be read in the context of the whole. The bible as a whole is the story of salvation. The parts add up to a whole. Fundamentalism takes these passages out of context. One of the threads running through the whole of scripture (in fact the main thread) is that God is faithful to his people through all the centuries of sinfulness and stupidity of his people.

The bottom line is, slavery as we know it is incompatible with Christian belief, as expressed in Jesus Christ. All these passages must be read in that context.

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.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yup.

Was not addressing real atheism. Was addressing Mikes post spec., practical atheism and Islam.
atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Practical-Atheism.htm

The reason I asked the question was because of this statement you made:

Pharaoh was a practical atheist relative to God depicted in the Bible.

A practical atheist requires two things:

1. Belief and/or statement of belief – A practical athiest believes and/or states that he believes in one or more gods.
2. Act – A practical atheist acts as though there is no god or gods, despite what he claims to believe or what he conciously thinks he believes.

So for a practical atheist there is a difference between belief and act.

Now let’s take Pharaoah from Exodus:

1. Belief and/or statement of belief – Pharaoh believed in the ancient Egyptian religion
   2, Act – Pharoah acted as though the ancient Egyptian religion was true.

There was no incongruity between what Pharoah believed and what he did. Not only that but neither his belief or act involved atheism.

You were the one that linked to the definition of practical atheism, and you still somehow got it completely wrong.

I know, I know you said, “relative to God depicted in the Bible”. First off, we don’t define someone’s religious belief by not being a single possible religious belief. No one would define you as a “practical athiest relative to Allah in the Quran”. They would call you what you are, Catholic. It doesn’t even make sense to define atheism or any belief system solely in how it is not a certain other belief system. An athiest doesn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian god, the Jainist god, the Hindu gods, etc. Atheism in no way is the lack of believe in a single specific god.

Let me try an analogy. I don’t know what sports, if any, you follow. There are 32 professional National Football League (NFL) teams. A person can be a fan of any of them or not a football fan. Let’s say you’re a fan of the Cowboys (boooooo!). When asked what kind of football fan you are you say you’re a Cowboys fan. If someone asked if you were not a football fan relative to Eagles’ fandom, you would say no. You would say that question makes no sense and that you are a Cowboys fan.

What I think happened was that you are so devoted to link Pharoah with athiesm that you constructed this all-askew description to do so, and even then it failed.

Beloved:
Who is the liar?
Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ.
Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.
Anyone who denies the Son does not have the Father,
but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.

catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/islam-and-the-crucifixion

That seems a bit harsh. As you can see from my posts I live in Lakewood, New Jersey, one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities in the country. How best should I tell the people I see each day that they are liars and the antichrist?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Read Exodus 21:3: “If he shall arrive by himself, he shall leave by himself.” This means that an unmarried Jewish slave is not imposed upon with a non-Jewish maidservant during his tenure as a slave. It’s right there in the text itself.

All “If he shall arrive by himself, he shall leave by himself.” means exactly what it says. This includes if he gains a wife or children during his captivity. If he’s freed, they stay. It’s right there in the text.

First, you can’t mix and match. Exodus 21:7 is a completely separate discourse altogether, and unrelated to Exodus 21:4.

I know you want to ignore passages that lay waste to your argument, but Exodus 21:7 is important when considering Exodus 21:4 and vice versa.

But let’s discuss Exodus 21:7. In this case, a Jewish father is permitted to “sell” his daughter before she reaches puberty to a master because this sale should result in the marriage to the master, or the master’s son.

Remember when I mentioned earlier in the thread about not adding to scripture? You are assuming that a sold daughter would necessarily become a wife of either the master or one of his sons. While that of course could happen, there is nothing in the text that says a daughter forced to become a handmaiden couldn’t remain that way. In fact it would be advantageous in some cases as they could be used later to breed no-cost slaves with a male slave.

If the marriage does not occur, it is regarded as a betrayal of the girl.

Only if she was promised as a bride. There is nothing in the scripture that says a female slave had to be betrothed to someone.

If one of them chooses to marry her, the purchase price is considered betrothal money by which she is consecrated to her husband. In normal circumstances, this exercise of betrothal would not be done this way, but in this case it is an opportunity to provide for her future that might not otherwise be available due to the extreme poverty of the father.

This is true.

f the girl is not betrothed, the girl goes free without payment at the end of six years, at the advent of the Jubilee (every 49 years), or when her puberty begins.

There is nothing in the scripture that says a female slave had to be betrothed to someone. There is nothing about puberty and the Bible only says (Exodus 21:8) that for a female slave that is chosen to be joined in marriage with the master (Traditional marriage, everyone!) and she does not “please” him (i.e. sexually) then he can’t just toss her aside. It says nothing of those female slaves purchased and not queued up to be married.

As you can see, this is a completely separate arrangement from a married Jewish male slave being imposed upon to marry a non-Jewish female slave as described in the earlier passage.

As you can see you are adding to scripture and assuming sold daughters must eventually be married by a slave owner or son. Once you take the text as written you don’t have to twist yourself in a pretzel to try and explain away Exodus 21:5-6.

The Jewish slave is already married to a Jewish wife. This second wife is temporary and non-Jewish. You cannot impose today’s societal norms about interracial marriages into an ancient text.

Why would you assume that a slave owner would only give a wife to a male slave that was already married?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Jewish slaves were not brutalized. Leviticus 25:43 forbids it: “You shall not subjugate him through hard labor - you shall fear your G-d.”

God in Exodus 21:20-21 allows it. Which verse wins?

Here’s a question for everyone participating?
Even StGerardMajella agrees that prepubescent girls were used as maidservants. If a slave owner strikes such a young girl (as God said he is allowed to do for she is the owner’s property) and a baby tooth comes out, does a magistrate or someone have to decide if the baby tooth would have come out anyway, or does the owner have to let her go for her baby tooth’s sake?

There are only two (2) ways in which a male Jew could become a slave. He can either sell himself as an escape from extreme poverty, or he may be a thief who is sold by the court system to raise funds to pay his victims. The case described in earlier passage, Exodus 21:4, is the latter.

Neither one requires that the male Jew be married, and thus he could be given a bride, and which he may accept. Whether that bride is Jewish or not, well we see if you can provide citations for what you stated above.

The male Jewish slave is already married to a Jewish woman, and well aware that the offspring of this temporary union to a non-Jewish slave will not be his. Again, there is no hardship.

Again, why would a Jewish male slave have to be married to someone on the outside to have kids – I mean besides your purposefully misunderstanding of Exodus 21:2?

In the rare and unusual circumstance where the slave wants to remain with the non-Jewish slave, despite the court’s and the master’s persuasion to the contrary (not to mention the persuasion of his existing Jewish wife!), he may remain a slave for life (or at least until the master dies). He is persuaded to choose freedom, instead. That’s not blackmail - It’s the decision of the slave.

Why couldn’t the master let the children and wife go free? Is this not the freedom-seeking that you claim the slavery was made for?

I never said the rules weren’t literal. I am saying that you are misinterpreting them and need to put the text into proper context and interpretation.

You said that “The ‘awl in the ear’ passage never happens because the slave is convinced to take up freedom. He is persuaded by both his master, and the court system.” and "The whole point of the “awl to the ear” quote is to encourage the slave to choose freedom. You’re saying there is a rule in place for those slaves who wish to stay but it’s never put into practice because the slaves would naturally choose freedom. It’s nonsense.

The whole story of the Exodus is all about freedom from oppression. We must not be reading the same book.

My book says what it says. You believe your book says what you want it to say.

But let’s take a step back here. Is this the hill you want to die on, the place you want to plant your flag and make your stand? God is God. Was there no better way? Was he not smart enough or kind enough to get his people to survive without such physical and sexual cruelty? Is this the benevolence we can expect from the omnibenevolent?

 

[StGerardMajella]

God in Exodus 21:20-21 allows it. Which verse wins?

Leviticus 25:43 forbids the mistreatment of Jewish slaves: “You shall not subjugate him through hard labor - you shall fear your G-d.” The Torah forbids the mistreatment of Jewish slaves through hard labor.

Exodus 21:20-21 is describing non-Jewish slaves, which is a different set of circumstances. In the event that a non-Jewish slave is struck with a rod and dies immediately, then the slave is avenged because the master will face the death penalty. Again, the non-Jewish slave is not permitted to be struck with the rod and beaten to death.

Here’s a question for everyone participating?
Even StGerardMajella agrees that prepubescent girls were used as maidservants. If a slave owner strikes such a young girl (as God said he is allowed to do for she is the owner’s property)…

Once again, the young girl is Jewish. She cannot be mistreated. She is “sold” into slavery to be betrothed to a Jewish master or his son. The only reason why she was sold is because her father is destitute and in extreme poverty. She goes free at puberty, at the 7th year Sabbatical, or the Jubilee year if she is not married to the master or her son.

Once married, however, she assumes the full rights and honor accorded to any Jewish wife, and is no longer a slave. There is no mistreatment, there is no hardship. This “sale” is done to allow the young Jewish girl to have a better life than what her destitute father can provide.

This is benevolence, and kindness. It’s not selling the maidservant into harsh, cruel slavery forever as you would imply.

…and thus he could be given a bride, and which he may accept. Whether that bride is Jewish or not, well we see if you can provide citations for what you stated above.

No, only already married Jewish slaves (who are already married to a Jewish wife) who were put into slavery due to theft can be given a non-Jewish maidservant. Unmarried Jewish slaves cannot. This is directly from Rashi, one of the foremost Jewish commentators on the Torah.

Again, why would a Jewish male slave have to be married to someone on the outside to have kids – I mean besides your purposefully misunderstanding of Exodus 21:2?

The commentators speculate that the Torah permits this to make the sale more attractive to potential buyers, so that the Jewish slave will be able to make restitution, thereby both compensating the victims of his theft and enabling him to begin a new life free from debt when his period of servitude is over.

Why couldn’t the master let the children and wife go free?

The court requires the Jewish slave to make restitution. To make restitution to the court and victims, the master had to pay a pretty penny for this Jewish slave who was found guilty of thievery, and the upside to the master is that the Jewish slave will be allowed to procreate with a non-Jewish maidservant.

You’re saying there is a rule in place for those slaves who wish to stay but it’s never put into practice because the slaves would naturally choose freedom. It’s nonsense.

Yes, in theory, they can stay, but they give up their Jewish wife, and remain a slave for life, or until the master dies. Freedom is much more attractive. As noted earlier, the master and the court are persuasive, as is the man’s Jewish wife. There is no hardship here.

And if a master goes to drill an awl through the slave’s ear – if it even comes to that - what do you think the slave will do? He’ll back down from his stubbornness and choose freedom.

God is God. Was there no better way? Was he not smart enough or kind enough to get his people to survive without such physical and sexual cruelty? Is this the benevolence we can expect from the omnibenevolent?

Where exactly is the cruelty? The Torah forbids the mistreatment of Jewish slaves. The punishment for Jewish slaves was a temporary 6 year tenure as an ordinary household servant, where they are treated without hardship. Sounds pretty lenient to me, and hardly the picture of cruelty. By contrast, in our modern era, some countries in the Middle East will cut off the hands of thieves!

Heck, a married Jewish slave who was a thief even gets to mate with a non-Jewish wife! That is a pretty liberal picture of “slavery”. Let’s see…He gets a free wife, he can’t be mistreated, and he goes free in 6 years. Yes, that’s just so tough and cruel. Give me a break. Bernie Madoff only wishes he had it so good.

All “If he shall arrive by himself, he shall leave by himself.” means exactly what it says. This includes if he gains a wife or children during his captivity.

He is single when he is placed into slavery, and is not given a non-Jewish maidservant. He remains single, just as the text states.

but Exodus 21:7 is important when considering Exodus 21:4 and vice versa.

No, they are completely unrelated, different scenarios as I have already explained at length.

While that of course could happen, there is nothing in the text that says a daughter forced to become a handmaiden couldn’t remain that way.

See above. They go free at puberty, the sabbatical year, or the Jubilee year if the master or his son refuse to marry her. If they marry her, she is no longer a slave, and afforded all the rights, privileges, and honor of a Jewish wife.

Why would you assume that a slave owner would only give a wife to a male slave that was already married?

It’s not an assumption. It’s the correct interpretation of the Hebrew.