What is there to say about slavery and the Bible? Especially the Old Testament? (MERGED)

[DanielJT]

My reading of the passage says that slaves can be beaten because they are the property of the Master. Why should one human being have the authority to hold another man as his property?

Does it say that they are always beaten?

Do you have anything that shows the standard correction of the time for a slave? Because you are assuming that “beat” is how we think of a beating. This is a culture that would correct their children by hitting them as well.

And how do you measure the intrinsic immorality of hitting someone? Have you ever been in a fist fight? Does every fist fight demand jail time or some sort of legal intervention?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

One thing at a time. We need to clear this up -

Exodus 20:20 “20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.”

My reading of this is that if you beat your servant to death you will be punished.

Agreed?

Disagree. I would have agreed if you had said, your “reading is that if you beat your servant where he or she dies the same day then you will be punished”. You can’t give an honest look to Exodus 21:20 unless you simultaneously look at Exodus 21:21.

If a town had a law where you couldn’t rape someone on a Saturday, but it was fine the rest of the week, the town can’t say that it’s against slavery. The same thing goes if the town says that rape with a knife is illegal but otherwise it’s fine. Speaking out against only a portion of a sinister act and spelling out how it’s not punishable in all other instances is still very wrong and evil.

 

[DanielJT]

Disagree. I would have agreed if you had said, your “reading is that if you beat your servant where he or she dies the same day then you will be punished”. You can’t give an honest look to Exodus 21:20 unless you simultaneously look at Exodus 21:21.

If a town had a law where you couldn’t rape someone on a Saturday, but it was fine the rest of the week, the town can’t say that it’s against slavery. The same thing goes if the town says that rape with a knife is illegal but otherwise it’s fine. Speaking out against only a portion of a sinister act and spelling out how it’s not punishable in all other instances is still very wrong and evil.

Ok then -

Exodus 20:21
“but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

My reading here is that if you hit your slave and they can heal within a day or two, you will not be punished.

This goes directly against your interpretation that killing slaves was OK. Agreed?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Ok then -

Exodus 20:21
“but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

My reading here is that if you hit your slave and they can heal within a day or two, you will not be punished.

This goes directly against your interpretation that killing slaves was OK. Agreed?

Let’s talk about the translation that you’re using. I’m not sure which one that is, but I know that the New International Version renders it that way. The trick is a majority of translations render it either as “continue a day or two” or “survives a day or two”. Check out several translations here. You’ll note the Douay-Rheims Bible, a version I’ve heard on EWTN described as a Catholic approved version, is quite clear when it says “But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money.”

If you click here the same site has 11 different classic commentaries on this verse. Not a single one claims this verse is not about the death of the slave.

 

[DanielJT]

Let’s talk about the translation that you’re using. I’m not sure which one that is, but I know that the New International Version renders it that way. The trick is a majority of translations render it either as “continue a day or two” or “survives a day or two”. Check out several translations here. You’ll note the Douay-Rheims Bible, a version I’ve heard on EWTN described as a Catholic approved version, is quite clear when it says “But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money.”

If you click here the same site has 11 different classic commentaries on this verse. Not a single one claims this verse is not about the death of the slave.

Mike, I can’t say that you haven’t challenged me here and I am very excited by this. I have to say that both of the Bibles I have with me render the verse as I quoted it, but I do see how it can be translated differently. The commentaries you linked to are also interesting.

I noticed I have also been calling it by the wrong chapter (Exodus 20 instead of 21) but you stuck with me and I appreciate that. I apologize there for my inattention.

So, let’s at least get on the same page with this: Exodus 21:20-21 - My reading here, after looking at the commentaries and various translations, is that if you own a slave and beat him or her, and the slave dies on that day you will be punished accordingly (for murder). But if you beat the slave and the slave survives for at least a day you will not be punished. This was because, according to the commentaries, if the slave did not die right away it was presumed that the death of the slave was not the intent of the beating. On top of that, you (the slave owner) will be punished already because you are losing a valuable slave.

I think this interpretation is upheld by verses earlier in the chapter (Exodus 21:12-14) and show a pattern of basing the punishment on intent and how that intent is measured.

Are we on the same page here?

 

[Achilles6129]

Why would the slave deserve to be beaten?

People today deserve to be beaten, but imprisonment has replaced beatings as a form of punishment. A slave would deserve to be beaten for physically assaulting someone, attempting to rob someone, etc.

also, the Bible says that the slave is the property of his master. What gives one human being the right to hold another human being as his property?

The same thing that gives a state the right to hold prisoners in jail or prison as their property. They’re the moral inferiors of the Israelites. They’re criminals. God could just kill them all and be totally justified in doing so; instead, he allows the Israelites to take them as slaves.

I doubt that you would continue to hold that slavery is not wrong if your master were beating you and treating you as his property.

Again, you’re adding things into Scripture that aren’t actually there.

 

[Wesrock]

Regarding “a day or two,” they were establishing a way of measuring cause and effect. How do you know if the slave actually died from the beating (fault of the owner) or from other causes? The intent wasn’t to create a super literal interpretation about two days, but to use it as a guide to determine if it was the fault of the owner. Those who wrote it must have felt that if slaves survived for two days after the beating then the beating couldn’t generally be faulted. I’d be wary about reading this timeline too literally. As Jesus taught, the law isn’t just arbitrary. We aren’t good because we were sure we waited two days. There was an obvious intent behind this law which was meant to be kept, and we can do ourselves harm by practicing it (or reading it) too literally.

 

[Achilles6129]

But even pushing that all aside, where does it say that punishment was only for those slaves who had done something to “deserve” it.

It’s implied in the passage and shown by the rest of the Torah in such statements as “an eye for an eye,” etc.

The implication in Exodus 21:20-21 is quite clear. Why could a slaveowner beat a slave? Because the slave was property. There is not a mention of a slave “deserving” it (despite how nauseating such a rationalization is).

No, again you’re adding things in that aren’t there. The idea that someone can beat their slave for no reason at all is denied by the rest of the Torah. You can’t just take passages out of Scripture and insert your own interpretations into them.

What do you call it where a young girl is forced to have sex with a man against her will?

See above. Again, the implication is that the female slave wants to be betrothed to her master or his son.

That’s funny. If a man rapes a woman (either in the country or if the woman cries out while being raped in the city) that is betrothed to another, that is condemned. You left out Deut. 22:28-29, where if a man rapes a woman not betrothed to another then the man only has to pay a penalty to the girl’s father and marry the girl. The girl has no say in the matter on if she wants to marry her rapists (because God is love?).

I didn’t leave out Deut. 22:28-29 because Deut. 22:28-29 isn’t talking about rape. It’s talking about consensual intercourse. The passage has been repeatedly misused by anti-theists and biblical scholars alike to say something that it doesn’t say. See my discussion on this here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=902298

Notice also the passage indicates that they are discovered (meaning she was complicit) and that the woman’s father then gives her in marriage to the man (and the father has the right to refuse his daughter to any man in marriage).

Since we know that owning people is not good,

We know nothing of the sort. Prisoners are owned by and the slaves of the state. I suggest that Israelite slavery had similar principles.

 

[Wesrock]

Slavery is against the dignity of the human person, but it was permitted to continue as God’s salavation pedagogy progresses. The Israelites were a people hard of heart, and they weren’t intrinsically better than the surrounding cultures they displaced, were surrounded by, and influenced by. God had to call them away from sin and purify them over time

It must also be remembered that it is not against the moral law to sell one’s work, and if a man wished to sell his entire life’s work upfront, that is technically not against the moral law, even if in practice it rarely works well or in a way that respects the dignity of a person, which is why we no longer permit it.

 

[Thorolfr]

Nothing in the Bible tells you how to beat, manslaughter, or rape slaves. God does command slavery in the OT, there’s no doubt about that. But slaves are not punished unless they deserve to be punished and certainly the Torah commands against raping/killing/beating people.

In fact, St. Augustine said that God would be angry if slaves are not whipped under certain circumstances. Kyle Harper quotes St. Augustine in his new book, *Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 *(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 230, from Corpus christianoruam, series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-), 40: 1464-6:

“Servumque ipsum tuum, si male viventem videris, non poena aliqua, non verberibus refrenabis? fiat hoc, fiat : admittit deus, imo reprehendit, si no fiat ; sed animo dilectionis fac : non animo ultionis.”

“if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit.”

You can find the Latin here from Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos, his commentary on Psalms:

augustinus.it/latino/esposizioni_salmi/esposizione_salmo_124_testo.htm

 

[Tomdstone]

“if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit.”

You can find the Latin here from Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos, his commentary on Psalms:

augustinus.it/latino/esposizioni_salmi/esposizione_salmo_124_testo.htm

Personally, I am opposed to enslaving people, especially women since the enslavement of women leads to beatings, sexual abuse and rape by their male slaveowners. I don’t understand why God allows it and why God is angry if you do not use the lash on your slave?

 

[Achilles6129]

1. What Augustine has to say is irrelevant.
2. In no case were slaves abused in any manner in the Torah, nor will you find any such thing in the Torah, unless you add it in.

 

[Thorolfr]

1. What Augustine has to say is irrelevant.
2. In no case were slaves abused in any manner in the Torah, nor will you find any such thing in the Torah, unless you add it in.

What about this from Exodus 21:20-21:

20 When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

So if you beat your slave, as long as the slave doesn’t die right away, it’s OK, because he/she is your property.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike, I can’t say that you haven’t challenged me here and I am very excited by this. I have to say that both of the Bibles I have with me render the verse as I quoted it, but I do see how it can be translated differently. The commentaries you linked to are also interesting.

I noticed I have also been calling it by the wrong chapter (Exodus 20 instead of 21) but you stuck with me and I appreciate that. I apologize there for my inattention.

So, let’s at least get on the same page with this: Exodus 21:20-21 - My reading here, after looking at the commentaries and various translations, is that if you own a slave and beat him or her, and the slave dies on that day you will be punished accordingly (for murder). But if you beat the slave and the slave survives for at least a day you will not be punished. This was because, according to the commentaries, if the slave did not die right away it was presumed that the death of the slave was not the intent of the beating.

It doesn’t take modern day forensics to see that hitting a person with a rod and that person dies a day or two later that the rod had some influence. The whole point of manslaughter is that there is culpability involved, although less than that of a murderer. A person who applies deadly force to another is responsible even if there was no intent of death. If I hit someone with a baseball bat for a reason other than self defense I will get some form of punishment. God spells out how to go punishment-free after beating another with a deadly weapon. This is what upsets non-believers and Christians who are not pro-slavery.

On top of that, you (the slave owner) will be punished already because you are losing a valuable slave.

That’s macabre but funny, trying to treat that death as a punishment to the slaveowner. I once read that the best definition of chutzpah is a child who kills his parents then asks the court for leniency since he’s an orphan.

I think this interpretation is upheld by verses earlier in the chapter (Exodus 21:12-14) and show a pattern of basing the punishment on intent and how that intent is measured.

If that were true then there would be no option to kill someone without an ounce of punishment. Even if the punishment is less than that of an intentional murder, there should be some punishment. The terrible dividing line where dying a day later (likely after suffering tremendously) is indefensible. God should have been able to come up with a much better morality than what he gave.

Are we on the same page here?

We’re closer but still not on the same page.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It’s implied in the passage and shown by the rest of the Torah in such statements as “an eye for an eye,” etc.

Of course you have to use the word implied because it’s not at all what the passages actually say. The Bible specifically explains that things one can do to a slave differ from what one can do with a fellow human being.

No, again you’re adding things in that aren’t there. The idea that someone can beat their slave for no reason at all is denied by the rest of the Torah. You can’t just take passages out of Scripture and insert your own interpretations into them.

Again, my interpretations are based on the actual words themselves. No Orwellian doubletalk is needed in the same way that pro-slavery Christians have to do. Slavery is freedom! Beatings are justice! Possession is equality!

Exodus 21:28-32 shows this disparity plainly. If a bull is known to gore people and the bull’s owner has been warned, yet it kills a person then the owner is to be killed (or can save his life by paying whatever is demanded of him). If the same situation occurs but instead a slave is killed (and not someone God twice called property) then the owner just pays 30 shekels.

Those rules that dole out justice and fairness to people do not seem to apply to slaves.

See above. Again, the implication is that the female slave wants to be betrothed to her master or his son.

Again with “implication” since that’s not the words actually say. You’re accusing me of adding to scripture yet I’m not the one doing it. Show me where a female slave purchased (whether it be a foreigner or a daughter sold by her father) or born could choose what they did while enslaved. Give me a passage that shows a recourse a female slave could take in such situations.

I didn’t leave out Deut. 22:28-29 because Deut. 22:28-29 isn’t talking about rape. It’s talking about consensual intercourse. The passage has been repeatedly misused by anti-theists and biblical scholars alike to say something that it doesn’t say. See my discussion on this here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=902298

Actually it covers both consensual and non-consensual intercourse. I read the conversation you linked to as well as the various links in it. It’s incorrect to say that the passage is only for consensual intercourse.

Notice also the passage indicates that they are discovered (meaning she was complicit) and that the woman’s father then gives her in marriage to the man (and the father has the right to refuse his daughter to any man in marriage).

Is this supposed to be a sign of God’s mercy? I’d hope that every single father in that situation where the daughter was raped would not force his daughter into such a position.

We know nothing of the sort. Prisoners are owned by and the slaves of the state. I suggest that Israelite slavery had similar principles.

Prisoners are prisoners because they have committed a crime. If you are comparing slavery in the Bible with that of prisoners, then you are saying that those who were enslaved by the tenets as described in the Bible were guilty of crimes. But as I’ve described a great many of those who were enslaved did nothing wrong. They are prisoners in the way the women held captive by Ariel Castro and not the prisoners found in a penitentiary like Rikers Island.

 

[DanielJT]

We’re closer but still not on the same page.

Mike, I understand that we are both in argument mode (the whole atheist vs believer thing), but I really want to have a productive discussion.

In my last post, I was merely presenting an interpretation or analysis of the verse from which we could both agree on and move from there. I even used the sources you gave to me and thought I had done a pretty fair job of it, but I really don’t see any reason to continue unless we can at least start with the same understanding of what this verse is (as objectively as possible) saying.

I have admitted that I was unaware of various translation possibilities, which you pointed out to me and I have conceded, and even pointed out the error of my haste in putting the verse in Exodus 20 rather than Exodus 21. I am honestly trying to be fair and open in this discussion. It honestly interests me and I want to hear what you have to bring to it.

If the interpretation I gave to it - regarding the death of the slave and the intent of the owner - is somehow missing something or misunderstanding something, please let me know where you think I am off.

Maybe then, one we are at a clear standing of what the verse is trying to say, we can move forward?

 

[Achilles6129]

Of course you have to use the word implied because it’s not at all what the passages actually say. The Bible specifically explains that things one can do to a slave differ from what one can do with a fellow human being.

No, I say the word “implied” because your interpretation of the passage is negated by the rest of the Torah.

Again, my interpretations are based on the actual words themselves.

Your interpretation is based on the idea that the slave did nothing to deserve getting beaten. The rest of the Torah denies that idea.

Exodus 21:28-32 shows this disparity plainly. If a bull is known to gore people and the bull’s owner has been warned, yet it kills a person then the owner is to be killed (or can save his life by paying whatever is demanded of him). If the same situation occurs but instead a slave is killed (and not someone God twice called property) then the owner just pays 30 shekels.

Certainly, there’s a disparity between slaves and Israelites. That’s because slaves are from the Gentile nations round about. Slaves are not treated equally with Israelites because they’re deemed the moral inferiors of the Israelites.

Those rules that dole out justice and fairness to people do not seem to apply to slaves.

They’re not viewed as being on equal footing with the Israelites any more than a prisoner is viewed as being on equal footing with you.

Again with “implication” since that’s not the words actually say. You’re accusing me of adding to scripture yet I’m not the one doing it. Show me where a female slave purchased (whether it be a foreigner or a daughter sold by her father) or born could choose what they did while enslaved. Give me a passage that shows a recourse a female slave could take in such situations.

Well, I can’t show you a place where it says a female slave can do whatever she wants, but I can certainly show you places in the Torah where rape is proscribed. That means that the female slave couldn’t be raped.

Actually it covers both consensual and non-consensual intercourse.

No, the passage covers only consensual intercourse. That’s why it says that they’re discovered and then the woman’s father gives her in marriage, when he has the right to refuse her under Torah law.

Is this supposed to be a sign of God’s mercy? I’d hope that every single father in that situation where the daughter was raped would not force his daughter into such a position.

There isn’t rape involved in the situation.

Prisoners are prisoners because they have committed a crime. If you are comparing slavery in the Bible with that of prisoners, then you are saying that those who were enslaved by the tenets as described in the Bible were guilty of crimes.

That is precisely correct. Anyone who disobeys God’s commands is a criminal in God’s sight. As a matter of fact, they are to God what the worst criminal in prison is to you. That’s why God said it was OK to enslave them.

But as I’ve described a great many of those who were enslaved did nothing wrong.

What you’ve described is completely at odds with Biblical theology which says that disobedience to God’s commands is something very wrong.

 

[Thorolfr]

Your interpretation is based on the idea that the slave did nothing to deserve getting beaten. The rest of the Torah denies that idea.

Does anyone ever deserve to be beaten or whipped?

 

[Tomdstone]

Anyone who disobeys God’s commands is a criminal in God’s sight. As a matter of fact, they are to God what the worst criminal in prison is to you. That’s why God said it was OK to enslave them…

Would it be OK for a white slavemaster to enslave a black woman who shops at Target on a Sunday because she is disobeying the command of God to keep holy the Lord’s Day? Actually I see a whole lot of people shopping on Sunday and as well doing other types of work on Sundays. I personally would not be in favor of enslaving them because they have disobeyed one of the ten Commandments.

 

[Achilles6129]

Does anyone ever deserve to be beaten or whipped?

Of course. We don’t do such things anymore because we have better prisons than we did previously. However, I would probably agree that human beings shouldn’t be beating one another if it’s outside of God’s commands. The reason I’d say that is because human beings simply aren’t that good at discerning the nature of good/evil.