New Testament on slavery

[Mike_from_NJ]

Exodus 21:20 forbids to kill a slave.( this was true both for a Hebrew slave and a pagan slave)

This is utterly false. Did you think I didn’t know Exodus 21:21, the exception to verse 20? God says that if an owner hits his slave with a rod and the slave doesn’t die the same day then the oner is not punishment because the slave was his property. This means that hitting a slave with a rod, even one just paying back a debt.

If the master hit a slave and he caused him a permanent injury (even only the breaking of a tooth), the slave must have been set free. Exodus 21: 26-27 ( this was true both for a Hebrew slave and a pagan slave)

It doesn’t say any permanent injury just the loss of a tooth or eye. There are a great many ways to harm someone that don’t involve hitting them in the head. In fact, let’s go back to the South Carolina Slave Code. It too punishes an owner for purposefully killing a slave or doing things like gouging out a slave’s eye, removing a limb, or castrating a slave. Again, there is no real difference between Biblical slavery and so-called chattel slavery.

Leviticus 25:39-42 says that, when an Hebrew sells himself to another Hebrew, the master must not consider him as a slave but as a hired worker and he must not rule over him ruthlessly.

But by what you quoted a Hebrew slave could be beaten with a rod so long as it didn’t knock out a tooth or eye or kill them that day. A slow painful lingering death was perfectly acceptable.

For pagan slaves we can apply:

Exodus 22:21 Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreignersin Egypt

and Deut 10:19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.

Beyond what I’ve already written he’s one final lesson I’ve written in other related threads:
We all know of politicians who at one time have said one thing and in practice done another. Imagine a made-up politician who talks about how much he loves the troops, but then slashes funding for veteran’s hospitals and armor for troops. He puts them into unnecessary conflicts and doesn’t give them the support needed to do extract themselves from combat safely. No person would look just at the words of that person and say the politician is for the troops. Two things are true: The specific is more telling than the vague. and actions speak louder than words. Any vague passages that say to be nice to slaves wither when compared to the many other passages that give very specific means to enact cruelty on others.

 

[Mmarco]

But these are not the only two possibilities. If God said there was to be no slavery, perhaps they would have accepted it.

First of all, your comment has nothing to do with my argument; the examle of anarchy was only to explaine that a totally unruled slavery is worse than a ruled slavery.
Besides, slavery was part of most ancient societies; your idea that Hebrews would have accepted it is simply ridiculous. You need to study history.

Because God has always known that Christianity would have had to spread among pagan societies (Romans, for example) who practised slavery. If the Hebrews would have rejected explicitly slavery, also christians would have rejected explicitly slavery, and therefore, christians would have found a much stronger opposition and the diffusion of christianity through the roman empire would have been impossible.

Again you need to take what you say to the logical conclusion: Christianity/Judaism …

Again, slavery was part of most ancient societies; if Christianity had explicitly condamned slavery, its diffusion through the roman empire would have been impossible; this fact is so obvious that I cannot believe that you do not understand it. I think you are just pretending not to understand, which makes me understand that this conversation has become only a waste of time.

Besides, your idea that the rules for slavery were given directly by God and not by Moses is due to a personal interpretation of yours; I don’t think that God dictated to Moses the rules about slavery.

Trust this atheist:…

I do not interpret the Bible literally and I disagree with your personal interpretations.

This is totally irrilevant; the point is that ancient peoples did not conceive the right of freedom according to our democratic standards. This has nothing to do with “doing something just because other nations are doing it”. You are using our modern democratic standards to judge ancient peoples, which is simply absurd.

God says don’t do these things that other nations do. You’re saying the Hebrews had to do them because everyone else was doing them. You’re choosing peer pressure over a God that shaped the Hebrew culture and its rules.

I have never said that the Hebrews HAD to do them because everyone else was doing them. You are changing my words on porpose. I clearly said that ancient peoples were not ready to understand our modern democratic principles, which is an obvious fact.

I have explained clearly my points and I have given solid and rational arguments proving them; you have raised no valid counter-arguments.
I think you are not interested in an honest conversation, since you are pretending not to understand obvious facts.
Therefore, I’ll stop here.

Best Regards.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Therefore, I’ll stop here.

Best Regards.

I appreciate that. I will respond in case anyone else wishes to pick up this line of inquiry.

But these are not the only two possibilities. If God said there was to be no slavery, perhaps they would have accepted it.

First of all, your comment has nothing to do with my argument; the examle of anarchy was only to explaine that a totally unruled slavery is worse than a ruled slavery.

But you’re glossing over the larger picture that God is said to only do good. Turn on EWTN and see how long before they denounce moral relativism. Yet, here we are talking about God advocating a (allegedly) slightly-less evil. Would the Church say that 1st trimester abortions are allowed to reduce the number of total abortions? No, they say what they think is right and what is wrong no matter the world says.

Besides, slavery was part of most ancient societies; your idea that Hebrews would have accepted it is simply ridiculous. You need to study history.

I’m actually well-versed in history. I also know that in the history of the Hebrew people that have – and continue to have – certain practices that other cultures don’t have, and vice versa. I live in a town with a large Orthodox Jewish populace. They make do with the restrictions they are to follow. For example, I actually live within an eruv. There’s no reason whatsoever that the Hebrews could not have survived and thrived without slavery.

Again, slavery was part of most ancient societies; if Christianity had explicitly condamned slavery, its diffusion through the roman empire would have been impossible; this fact is so obvious that I cannot believe that you do not understand it. I think you are just pretending not to understand, which makes me understand that this conversation has become only a waste of time.

That’s twice you made an assertion about needing slavery for Christianity to spread without providing a hint of evidence. I’d have been more apt to believe your claim if you had.

I do not interpret the Bible literally and I disagree with your personal interpretations.

At no point does a figurative interpretation of any literature mean its 180 degree exact opposite. It would be like saying “raining cats and dogs” describes a sunny day. If you want to say Moses wasn’t told this verbally, I could by that. But when you say these words didn’t in some way come from God, despite the Bible taking great pains to make that clear, it seems the interpretation is not from studying the words but having a desired interpretation and working backwards (language be darned).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

God says don’t do these things that other nations do. You’re saying the Hebrews h
I have never said that the Hebrews HAD to do them because everyone else was doing them. You are changing my words on porpose. I clearly said that ancient peoples were not ready to understand our modern democratic principles, which is an obvious fact.

I did not alter your words in the slightest. You said a reasonable excuse why the Hebrews did have slavery was because they expected it seeing as how other cultures had it. That flies in the face of God himself saying too bad if other cultures do something I make the rules. And you may want to read my long response to goout showing that we never tell someone that it’s okay to do evil just because they may not fully understand the implications.

I have explained clearly my points and I have given solid and rational arguments proving them; you have raised no valid counter-arguments.

I have to strongly disagree on all counts.

I think you are not interested in an honest conversation, since you are pretending not to understand obvious facts.

I feel this is an uncharitable and unfounded remark, so perhaps it is good our portion of the conversation is over. Good night.

 

[BartholomewB]

Also let me introduce you to the South Carolina Slave Code. So-called chattel slavery had some very baseline regulations that slaveowners had to follow. One of those was limiting the number of hours a slave could work per day. This is not in ANY WAY to celebrate the actions done then, but only to show that Biblical slavery isn’t that much different than American slavery.

Slavery is slavery, but as you have shown in this post, different societies have devised different rules at different times. One rule which, as far as I know, was specific to the United States was the racial restriction placed upon slave ownership. Only white people were allowed to own slaves. In other countries in the Americas where slavery was abolished even later than in the United States, there was no such restriction. In Brazil, for example, prior to abolition in 1888, anybody, white or black, was free to own slaves. It was quite common for manumitted slaves, particularly women, to start their own small businesses in areas such as catering and dressmaking, and their “employees”, naturally, were all slaves. In a slave economy, no business could afford to pay wages. It would have left them hopelessly uncompetitive. The 18th and 19th century county records show that, in some places and in some years, more than half of all slave owners were classified as “black or mixed race.”

This may perhaps explain the curious contrast between reactions to the killing of George Floyd. More enslaved Africans were shipped to Brazil than to the United States. In Brazil, however, slavery hasn’t left the same legacy of racial animosity that fueled the recent wave of BLM protests in the U.S. and around the world. There were no such protests in Brazil.

 

[Athanasiy]

The fight against slavery is a process of centuries.
It’s not finished yet.
Slavery still exists in many forms, even literally.
The Lord made a revolution in the heart of man. This revolution made slaves free even centuries before slavery was abolished

 

[dochawk]

. Of course we understand today that slavery is a horrible institution, but I’m not sure we should have expected them to have fully figured it out back then in a span of roughly 100-200 years.

we also tend to gloss over the differences between africa chattel slavery, particularly as exported to north america, and the historical nature of slavery.

when two city states went to war, it was merciful for the victor to enslave the other army, as opposed to executing it . . .