When did the Jewish people of the bible stop taking slaves.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jessup
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jessup

Guest
I am curious,

In the bible there is a lot of reference to the Jewish people and instruction on how to treat slaves, who to take as slaves. ect. (generalization)
(Jesus never preached agaist it either for that matter)
In which time line has the Jewish faith considered this to be immoral or corrupt practice.
I suppose much of this would have been in regards to the area or country of the world ect.
(British Enlightenment for example) (Coloniel USA)
I am curious becuase I am a struggling catholic and I really don’t like God. I’m trying to make some kind of sense out of the bible.
Since Jewish people where given the ok from God in the desert to take slaves, does that mean its still ok for them this day and age.
Say in comparrison to a modern day muslim country where Christians are still kept agaist there will in Africa where there are still modern day martyrs

Hope this question made some kind of sense thanks…
 
This has bothered me too.

Here’s an article I found that answers Jewish slavery very well: christiancourier.com/articles/800-what-about-the-bible-and-slavery

Its main point is that God never wanted slavery, but acquiesced to the culture of his people (which had come about because of their many sins (especially idolatry), just like us), in allowing for slavery–however slaves were to be treated with human dignity, not to be murdered, but valued, etc.

IT was largely the Bible that inspired the end of slavery in our country!
 
Jessup said:
I am curious,

In the bible there is a lot of reference to the Jewish people and instruction on how to treat slaves, who to take as slaves. ect. (generalization)
(Jesus never preached agaist it either for that matter)
In which time line has the Jewish faith considered this to be immoral or corrupt practice.
I suppose much of this would have been in regards to the area or country of the world ect.
(British Enlightenment for example) (Coloniel USA)
I am curious becuase I am a struggling catholic and I really don’t like God. I’m trying to make some kind of sense out of the bible.
Since Jewish people where given the ok from God in the desert to take slaves, does that mean its still ok for them this day and age.
Say in comparrison to a modern day muslim country where Christians are still kept agaist there will in Africa where there are still modern day martyrs

Hope this question made some kind of sense thanks…
Click to expand...
The jews did not have “slaves” as you are familiar with.

If a jew had a debt he could put himself into bondage as a slave to repay the debt. However this was not a permanent arrangement since the law required that after a set period of years he would have to be set free of that bond. 👍
 
rscanl01 said:
Its main point is that God never wanted slavery, but acquiesced to the culture of his people (which had come about because of their many sins (especially idolatry), just like us), in allowing for slavery–however slaves were to be treated with human dignity, not to be murdered, but valued, etc.
Click to expand...
I’ve never bought that argument. God can tell his people to cut off their foreskins, that they can be put to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, that they have to wear certain types of fringes, that they can’t eat certain foods, and scads of other very specific rules; but somehow telling the Israelites that they can’t own another person is just too much for God?
IT was largely the Bible that inspired the end of slavery in our country!
Click to expand...
While there were people who pointed to the bible as a reason to end slavery, there were as many people who pointed to its various passages as a reason not to end it. It was the American Civil War which ended slavery in America, not the bible or even Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
The jews did not have “slaves” as you are familiar with.
Click to expand...
If a jew had a debt he could put himself into bondage as a slave to repay the debt. However this was not a permanent arrangement since the law required that after a set period of years he would have to be set free of that bond.
Click to expand...
This is another argument which I have never bought. First off, there were different rules for Jewish and non-Jewish slaves, where the former couldn’t leave after any number of years and the latter had to give us his family if he wanted to be free. Second, the bible allows for the manslaughter of a slave so long as he doesn’t die the same day that he’s beaten. That is not indentured servitude but an act most vile.
 
rscanl01 said:
IT was largely the Bible that inspired the end of slavery in our country!
Click to expand...
I tend to believe that Atlantic trade slavery ended when it was no longer the Chicken that Laid the Golden Eggs.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
I’ve never bought that argument. God can tell his people to cut off their foreskins, that they can be put to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, that they have to wear certain types of fringes, that they can’t eat certain foods, and scads of other very specific rules; but somehow telling the Israelites that they can’t own another person is just too much for God?

While there were people who pointed to the bible as a reason to end slavery, there were as many people who pointed to its various passages as a reason not to end it. It was the American Civil War which ended slavery in America, not the bible or even Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

This is another argument which I have never bought. First off, there were different rules for Jewish and non-Jewish slaves, where the former couldn’t leave after any number of years and the latter had to give us his family if he wanted to be free. Second, the bible allows for the manslaughter of a slave so long as he doesn’t die the same day that he’s beaten. That is not indentured servitude but an act most vile.
Click to expand...
Actually what you believe is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that jews had strict laws that governed this practice

Deuteronomy 15:12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.

Exodus 21:3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

Leviticus 25:39 "'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.

Leviticus 25:40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.

It is supposed that the term six years is to be understood as referring to the sabbatical years; for let a man come into servitude at whatever part of the interim between two sabbatical years, he could not be detained in bondage beyond a sabbatical year; so that if he fell into bondage the third year after a sabbatical year, he had but three years to serve; if the fifth, but one. See Clarke’s note on Exodus 23:11, etc. Others suppose that this privilege belonged only to the year of jubilee, beyond which no man could be detained in bondage, though he had been sold only one year before.
 
JerryZ said:
Actually what you believe is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that jews had strict laws that governed this practice

Deuteronomy 15:12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.

Exodus 21:3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

Leviticus 25:39 "'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.

Leviticus 25:40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.

It is supposed that the term six years is to be understood as referring to the sabbatical years; for let a man come into servitude at whatever part of the interim between two sabbatical years, he could not be detained in bondage beyond a sabbatical year; so that if he fell into bondage the third year after a sabbatical year, he had but three years to serve; if the fifth, but one. See Clarke’s note on Exodus 23:11, etc. Others suppose that this privilege belonged only to the year of jubilee, beyond which no man could be detained in bondage, though he had been sold only one year before.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a place in the bible where God tells the Jews they are going to make another nation slaves to them. Through there conquest. I know that there where a lot of intense battles then and that the Jews where warrior people from what I understand. But I guess any group of people would have to be in that time period to survive.
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery

The Jews condemnation of slavery started when it became fashionable in the west t condemn slavery. Not only the Tanakh supports slavery, but so does the Midrash and Talmud.

I wish there was some way to believe in Jesus and think that the OT is what it is. Jewish Mythology and laws made by men. Yahweh is a sexually obsessed despot who commands his tribe of ignorant desert nomads to cut the flesh off of their penises as a sign of loyalty. And can someone answer my question Why does the church still preach original sin when we know for sure that Adam and Eve did not exist? and how come Jesus never condemns slavery or homosexuality?
 
Samson33 said:
Yahweh is a sexually obsessed despot who commands his tribe of ignorant desert nomads to cut the flesh off of their penises as a sign of loyalty. And can someone answer my question Why does the church still preach original sin when we know for sure that Adam and Eve did not exist? and how come Jesus never condemns slavery or homosexuality?
Click to expand...
Congratulations on entering RCIA. If it would be possible to expedite the process, I would encourage you.

As God-fearing people we have had the joyous opportunity to submit to God in various ways over time. For Christians, Baptism has taken the place of circumcision.

The Church teaches the truth about original sin because it is a Christian church. Without this teaching, it would cease to the Church.

Jesus does condemn acts of sin, and of his Grace through Faith, and the Church will help you more fully understand what and what is not a sin.
 
benjohnson said:
Congratulations on entering RCIA. If it would be possible to expedite the process, I would encourage you.

As God-fearing people we have had the joyous opportunity to submit to God in various ways over time. For Christians, Baptism has taken the place of circumcision.

The Church teaches the truth about original sin because it is a Christian church. Without this teaching, it would cease to the Church.

Jesus does condemn acts of sin, and of his Grace through Faith, and the Church will help you more fully understand what and what is not a sin.
Click to expand...
My RCIA instructor doesn’t leave time for questions after the class. I’m sorry If you felt I was being disrespectful, thats just what the bible seems like to me when I read it. Technically I’ve only read the Torah or Pentateuch.
 
Samson33 said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery

The Jews condemnation of slavery started when it became fashionable in the west t condemn slavery. Not only the Tanakh supports slavery, but so does the Midrash and Talmud.

I wish there was some way to believe in Jesus and think that the OT is what it is. Jewish Mythology and laws made by men. Yahweh is a sexually obsessed despot who commands his tribe of ignorant desert nomads to cut the flesh off of their penises as a sign of loyalty. And can someone answer my question Why does the church still preach original sin when we know for sure that
Code: 
 Jesus did condem homsexuals. It is in one of the gospals where he mentions that men are evil. saying they have sex with other men.
Click to expand...
 
It seems to me this great concern over slavery is a product of modern democracy which has convinced people they are the government, by means of voting, when in fact the corporations, politicians, and bureaucrats are the government. Slavery is essentially demanding work from people. This was done by feudal lords and is done by modern governments through taxation. The slave master could restrict your freedom the same as the state can today.

What exactly is it we object to? The work demanded is a separate issue from treatment. Abuse is not an essential part of slavery, though it may be very common. Try not paying your taxes and see how the government treats you. Eventually they’ll get guys with guns to round you up. And if you resist they may beat, shock, or even kill you. If there is ever a war the government claims the right to conscript you. They can force you to work and force you to go into deadly situations where the likelihood of death is high.

My point is that when you look at the issue broadly the only way governments are not the same of slavery is if you give that institution an exemption from the moral law, which is what the legislators often actually do with statutes. If you have problems with the morality of slavery you really have problems with the morality of governments as well. It seems to me we will always have governments of some sort and the Scripture says as much. So why don’t we have equal problems with this notion in the Scripture as we do slavery?
 
exnihilo said:
It seems to me this great concern over slavery is a product of modern democracy which has convinced people they are the government, by means of voting, when in fact the corporations, politicians, and bureaucrats are the government. Slavery is essentially demanding work from people. This was done by feudal lords and is done by modern governments through taxation. The slave master could restrict your freedom the same as the state can today.

What exactly is it we object to? The work demanded is a separate issue from treatment. Abuse is not an essential part of slavery, though it may be very common. Try not paying your taxes and see how the government treats you. Eventually they’ll get guys with guns to round you up. And if you resist they may beat, shock, or even kill you. If there is ever a war the government claims the right to conscript you. They can force you to work and force you to go into deadly situations where the likelihood of death is high.

My point is that when you look at the issue broadly the only way governments are not the same of slavery is if you give that institution an exemption from the moral law, which is what the legislators often actually do with statutes. If you have problems with the morality of slavery you really have problems with the morality of governments as well. It seems to me we will always have governments of some sort and the Scripture says as much. So why don’t we have equal problems with this notion in the Scripture as we do slavery?
Click to expand...
This is utterly absurd, and is insulting to people who have truly been slaves, held as property by other people, with no freedom whatsoever to remove themselves from that situation, regardless of whether or not physical abuse was involved.
 
It’s only meant to be a test, people.

In the end G0d says that “They (the Israelites) are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

So we could chose to either treat servants the way described earlier, or we could treat them the way he treated his people. When he talked about his servants that he lead out of Egypt he wanted us to treat servants like he treated the people he lead out of Egypt.
 
RyanBlack said:
This is utterly absurd, and is insulting to people who have truly been slaves, held as property by other people, with no freedom whatsoever to remove themselves from that situation, regardless of whether or not physical abuse was involved.
Click to expand...
I’d be happy to consider it absurd and insulting if you point out why. When my grandfather was drafted and sent over to Europe to face German bullets he didn’t have much freedom. Removing himself from the situation would have led to imprisonment or even execution.
 
exnihilo said:
I’d be happy to consider it absurd and insulting if you point out why. When my grandfather was drafted and sent over to Europe to face German bullets he didn’t have much freedom. Removing himself from the situation would have led to imprisonment or even execution.
Click to expand...
You really can’t see the difference? Your grandfather was monetarily compensated for his service, and your grandfather was not conscripted for life. The analogy is absurd, and it is insulting to people who have been held in chattel slavery for life, without compensation for their work, and with no option for ever being freed. Still can’t see the difference?
 
exnihilo said:
I’d be happy to consider it absurd and insulting if you point out why. When my grandfather was drafted and sent over to Europe to face German bullets he didn’t have much freedom. Removing himself from the situation would have led to imprisonment or even execution.
Click to expand...
Would you object to being owned by another person? Would you, in good conscience, own another person as property?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top