The Slavery Issue Response Post
Let's start that Bible study, then.
You have accused me of misunderstanding scripture, stripping it of its historical context, and imposing modern definitions on ancient Near Eastern law.
That's quite an accusation from someone who apparently believes buying, owning, and inheriting human beings isn't really slavery as long as the slaves get Saturdays off.
So, let's look at the actual law, shall we?
POINT ONE: SLAVERY OR SERVANTHOOD?
First, there were two broad categories of slavery under Mosaic law: Hebrew debt servitude and the permanent enslavement of foreigners.
Hebrews who became impoverished could enter debt servitude and were given special protections, including provisions for eventual release. Foreign slaves, however, occupied a different legal position. They could be purchased, owned for life, and inherited by the slaveholder's children.
This is not some modern interpretation. It is explicitly established in Leviticus 25:39–46.
In fact, the Hebrew vocabulary makes the distinction particularly clear. Verse 40 uses the word sakhir, meaning a hired laborer, to describe how impoverished Israelites were to be treated. Just four verses later, the law authorizes the purchase of foreign slaves, and verse 46 permits their permanent ownership and inheritance.
Apparently, the biblical authors understood the difference between a hired laborer and a slave. You seem to be having considerably more difficulty with it.
Now, my original claim was that the Bible condoned slavery. You insisted that it wasn't really slavery, but servanthood.
Then you apparently opened that dusty Bible of yours and discovered that, yes, the Israelites actually owned slaves.
So now your argument is that the slaves were treated so wonderfully that we shouldn't call it slavery.
Sorry, but that's not how definitions work.
They were slaves. They were property. They could be purchased, owned permanently, and inherited.
The Bible explicitly says so.
Point one. I was correct, and you agreed with me. Thanks
POINT TWO: BEATING SLAVES TO DEATH
Now, you claimed that I misunderstood Exodus 21:20–21 when I said a slaveholder could beat a slave so severely that the slave died a day or two later without the owner being punished.
Then you explained that the one- or two-day provision existed to establish that the owner's intention was discipline rather than murder.
But you acknowledge that the law explicitly gives the slave owner the right to beat his slave to death, as long as the slave lives 1-2 days before dying.
We agree again!
Your problem is that you claim I was wrong about this law, but then you admit I was right while trying to explain the super-nice reasons the law was made.
Was the victim a slave? Yes. Was the victim beaten to death by his master? Yes. Is the master punished for this? No, as long as the slave dies 1-2 days later.
And why did the owner not get punished? It is right there in the scripture. The slave is his property. If he kills his slave, he lost his asset, and that is punishment enough.
The economic loss suffered by the owner was understood by traditional commentators as part of the rationale for not imposing further punishment.
Such compassion. Somebody call the Nobel committee!
Point two. We seem to agree.
POINT THREE: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SLAVE'S TOOTH?
Now you triumphantly announce that I conveniently left out Exodus 21:26–27.
According to you, this is the devastating evidence that exposes my dishonesty.
If an owner destroyed a slave's eye or knocked out a tooth, the slave was entitled to freedom.
Yes. That's true.
And?
I left it out because I was discussing whether slaveholders were permitted to beat their slaves, not whether the law provided freedom as compensation for certain injuries.
But since you've brought it up, let's talk about it.
A slave could be purchased, owned, inherited, and subjected to corporal punishment.
However, if the owner knocked out a tooth or destroyed an eye, the slave was entitled to release.
Well, fantastic. Kudos. Call the Nobel committee again!
Let me ask you something.
If I asked you to rank the importance of your life, your freedom, and your molars, which would come first?
Because you seem extraordinarily impressed that Mosaic law protected a slave's tooth while allowing the slave himself to remain somebody's property.
Yes, the provision gave slaves some protection against serious injury. I have never denied that.
But a slave who kept all his teeth was still a slave.
A slave who wasn't blinded was still a slave.
And a slave who wasn't beaten to death was still a slave.
See how that works?
Point three. We agree that knocking out a slave's tooth could result in his freedom. We apparently disagree about whether keeping his teeth somehow made him a free man.
POINT FOUR: FOREIGN SLAVES WERE PROPERTY
Now you express complete astonishment at my claim that foreign slaves were treated as permanent property.
Your words were:
"You claim that foreign slaves were treated strictly as permanent property like cattle? Really now?"
Yes. Really.
As part of your Bible study, I suggest you actually read the passages you cite instead of relying on whatever you found on your favorite apologetics website.
Leviticus 25:44–46 expressly permits Israelites to purchase slaves from foreign nations and resident foreign populations.
44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Note the bold portion. The foreign slaves are treated differently from Israelite slaves. The slave owner is barred from treating the Israelites “harshly”, which would indicated in this context that harsh treatment was part of the Gentile slave’s daily life.
Point four. You disagree with me, but only because you apparently haven't read your own citation, which expressly supports my claim.
POINT FIVE: HUMANITARIAN SLAVERY! SATURDAYS OFF!
Now we arrive at your wonderful humanitarian defense of biblical slavery.
You tell us that foreign slaves received Sabbath rest, participated in religious festivals, and were protected against certain forms of abuse.
WOW!
They got Saturdays off!
And holidays, too?
Well, why didn't you say so?
That completely makes up for the inconvenient fact that they were slaves!
Let's review.
They had Saturdays off. But…they were still slaves.
They had holidays off. But…they were still slaves.
Got it. Sounds like a pretty good life.
But they were still slaves.
By the way, the Sabbath commandment also provides rest for livestock. So…slaves got the same treatment as livestock. You call that humanitarian? Wow.
And then you claim foreign slaves received the same protections as Hebrews.
They did not enjoy the same legal status. Read the scriptures above. No, they did not have the same protections. Slaves had no rights other than not to be immediately murdered or to have a tooth knocked out or the loss of an eye. Other than that, it was open season.
I've always wondered something, though.
If a master beats his slave to death on the Sabbath, would he be executed for breaking the Sabbath?
Hmmmmm.
Even farmers sometimes throw their horses an apple.
Point five. Slaves received certain legal protections. They were nevertheless slaves.
We agree on the facts. You just seem determined to pretend they mean something they don't.
POINT SIX: THE ULTIMATE LOOPHOLE!
Now we arrive at what you call the ultimate proof that biblical slavery wasn't really slavery.
Deuteronomy 23:15–16.
According to you, every Hebrew or foreign slave could simply walk away from an abusive owner, settle in another town, and obtain permanent freedom.
You even claim this completely destroyed a slaveholder's property rights.
Oh, this should be good.
First, the existence or absence of a fugitive-slave law does not determine whether slavery exists.
Since you brought up American slavery, let's use your example.
The United States passed federal Fugitive Slave Acts in 1793 and 1850.
Yet the enslavement of Africans existed in colonial North America long before those federal statutes.
Are you suggesting those people weren't actually slaves because the federal fugitive-slave laws hadn't yet been enacted?
They probably would have liked to know that.
Now, let's look at the passage you quoted.
Deuteronomy 23:15–16 prohibits returning an escaped slave to an owner and permits the fugitive to live among the Israelites, in whichever town the person chooses.
Notice anything?
The passage describes the fugitive coming to reside among the Israelites, within their territory.
There is a longstanding scholarly interpretation that this refers to slaves fleeing INTO Israel from foreign lands.
Virtually all commentators have understood the law this way.
And there is good historical reason for that interpretation.
Ancient Near Eastern treaties commonly required the return of fugitive slaves who crossed political boundaries. Deuteronomy's provision can reasonably be understood as rejecting that practice and offering asylum to slaves escaping into Israel.
That's rather different from your imagined system in which every slave owned by an Israelite could simply stroll into the next town and become free.
And here's another problem.
You claim that abused slaves could walk away.
Where does the passage say abuse was required?
It doesn't.
You have added that condition yourself.
And then there is Leviticus 25:44–46, which we have already discussed.
According to your interpretation, an Israelite could legally purchase a foreign slave, own him for life, and pass him down to his children as inherited property.
But the slave could simply walk to another Israelite town and become free.
Really?
So Mosaic law expressly authorized permanent, hereditary slavery while simultaneously providing a universal escape clause that could render those ownership rights meaningless.
That would be quite an extraordinary arrangement.
If that's what you believe the law established, you need to demonstrate it.
You haven't.
And here's the best part.
You accuse ME of ignoring the historical context!
Yet you seem completely unaware of the ancient Near Eastern practice of returning fugitive slaves between political territories, which helps explain precisely why this provision existed.
The historical context you keep telling me to study actually supports the interpretation you have dismissed.
And, of course, you conveniently quoted only part of the passage, leaving out the language about the fugitive settling within Israelite towns.
Probably by accident.
Point six. The law protected runaway slaves, most plausibly those escaping from foreign territory into Israel. It does not establish the universal domestic emancipation law you have invented.
Nice try, though.
POINT SEVEN: WIVES, CHILDREN, AND THE WONDERFUL CHOICE OF PERMANENT SLAVERY
Now let's examine Exodus 21:4–6.
You claim that when a master provided a wife to a Hebrew debt slave, the wife and children remained with the master to protect them economically.
Really?
Where does the text say that?
It doesn't.
What it actually says is that when the man's service ended, he could leave, but his wife and children remained behind.
The Bible tells us exactly why they stayed.
Because they belonged to the master. You know, like slaves?
Not a whisper of a hint about providing for them economically. That is pure fantasy.
And then you describe the man's opportunity to remain permanently enslaved as an upgrade to his status!
An upgrade?
Are you serious?
The man could take his freedom and leave his wife and children behind, or he could remain with them by agreeing to become a slave permanently.
And you call that a humanitarian provision?
Good old God, always looking out for the little guy.
You want to stay with your wife and children?
No problem!
Just give up your freedom forever!
Easy peasy.
And how was this wonderful arrangement formalized?
The master brought him before God, took him to a door or doorpost, and pierced his ear with an awl to mark his permanent servitude.
What a marvelous family benefits program.
Apparently, the ultimate act of compassion was allowing a man to remain with his family, provided he agreed to remain enslaved.
Call the Nobel committee again!
Point seven. Your supposed humanitarian provision offered a man freedom without his family or permanent enslavement with them.
Not exactly the generous employment contract you seem determined to portray.
FINALLY, LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR HISTORICAL CONTEXT
You conclude by claiming that the Torah did not establish chattel slavery but merely inherited an ancient institution and radically modified it.
And here you are, creating a straw man.
I never said the Torah invented slavery.
I said it condoned slavery.
And I have demonstrated that it did.
Slaves were bought, sold, and bequeathed. They were slaves for their entire lives. Beating with rods was approved practice.
And the Bible never even hints it might be immoral. Not even in the New Testament!
So you keep changing the terminology, inventing benevolent motives, and pretending that regulating slavery is the same thing as abolishing it.
CHALLENGE → ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:
· If Hebrew and foreign slaves enjoyed the same legal status, why does Leviticus specifically distinguish their treatment and authorize permanent ownership of foreigners?
· You have conceded that foreigners could be purchased and held permanently. Leviticus 25:46 explicitly permits their inheritance as property. What particular legal protection do you believe changes that ownership relationship into ordinary employment?
· And if buying, owning, and inheriting another human being isn't slavery, what exactly do you think slavery means?
Those should be easy questions for someone so thoroughly versed in the historical and legal context of scripture.
But I suspect we'll get another sermon about Saturdays off and the importance of dental hygiene.
Yes, good old God, always looking out for the little guy.
Apparently, buying and inheriting human beings was perfectly acceptable under his law, provided everyone remembered to keep the Sabbath and stay away from shrimp.
Not a big fan of shrimp, your God.
But slavery?
Okie dokie!
Let's start that Bible study, then.
You accused me of misreading scripture, ignoring historical context, and imposing modern definitions on ancient law. Bold words from someone who thinks buying, owning, and inheriting human beings isn't slavery as long as the slaves get Saturdays off.
Let's read the actual law, shall we?
POINT ONE: SLAVERY OR SERVANTHOOD?
Mosaic law distinguished between Hebrew debt servitude and the permanent enslavement of foreigners. Impoverished Hebrews were given special protections and provisions for release. Foreigners could be purchased, owned for life, and inherited (Leviticus 25:39–46).
The Hebrew makes the distinction particularly clear. Verse 40 uses the word sakhir, meaning a hired worker, to describe how an impoverished Israelite should be treated. Four verses later, the law authorizes buying foreign slaves, and verse 46 permits their inheritance.
Apparently, the biblical authors understood the difference between hired labor and slavery. You're the one struggling with it.
You started by claiming it wasn't really slavery. Now you've apparently opened that dusty Bible of yours and discovered that, yes, the Israelites owned slaves. So your argument has changed to claiming that slavery did exist, but it was really, really nice.
Progress!
But that's not how definitions work.
Point one: I was right, and you agreed. Thanks.
POINT TWO: BEATING SLAVES TO DEATH
You said I misunderstood Exodus 21:20–21 when I claimed that a slaveholder could beat a slave so severely that the slave died a day or two later without the owner being punished.
Then you explained that the one- or two-day provision existed to establish that the owner's intention was discipline rather than murder.
So, let me get this straight.
Under the delayed-death interpretation I cited, a slaveholder could beat a slave with a club so severely that the slave died a day or two later, and the owner would escape punishment under this provision.
You called that interpretation a misunderstanding, then offered an explanation of why the exemption existed rather than demonstrating that my interpretation was wrong.
You seem to think that explaining the motive behind the law refutes my criticism of the law.
It doesn't.
Now, let's consider why the law exempts the owner from punishment in verse 21.
The text explains that the slave is the owner's property.
His property.
The economic loss suffered by the owner was understood by traditional commentators as part of the rationale for not imposing further punishment.
In other words, the slaveholder had already lost his investment.
Such compassion. Somebody call the Nobel committee!
Point two: You haven't refuted my criticism. You've attempted to justify the very legal exemption I was criticizing. You seem to be agreeing that what I said was correct.
POINT THREE: THE TOOTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TOOTH!
You triumphantly produced Exodus 21:26–27. If an owner destroyed a slave's eye or knocked out a tooth, the slave was entitled to freedom.
True.
And?
Quick question: Rank your life, your freedom, and your molars in order of importance. I bet I can guess which comes in third place.
You seem awfully impressed that the law protected a slave's teeth while allowing the rest of him to remain somebody's property.
Yes, the law provided freedom for certain serious injuries. I never denied that.
But a slave with all his teeth was still a slave.
Point three: We agree about the tooth. We disagree that dental protection somehow equals freedom.
POINT FOUR: FOREIGN SLAVES WERE PROPERTY
You wrote:
"You claim that foreign slaves were treated strictly as permanent property like cattle? Really now?"
Yes. Really.
Let's open Leviticus 25:44–46, which you apparently haven't bothered to read carefully (even though you cited it. Shame on you.)
"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves." (v. 44)
"They may be your property." (v. 45)
"You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property." (v. 46)
Property. Possession. Inheritance.
Your Bible, not mine. That discomfort you are feeling comes from a combination of a conscience and cognitive dissonance.
And notice the final distinction in verse 46: Israelites are explicitly protected against harsh rule. Foreign slaves do not receive that same prohibition in this passage.
Now, that doesn't establish that every conceivable abuse of foreigners was permitted. But it certainly establishes that Hebrews and foreigners did not enjoy identical legal status.
So, tell me again how these people were merely hired servants. I need you to explain that to me like I am five.
I certainly wouldn't want to work for you as a gardener or housekeeper.
Point four: You disagree with me because you apparently haven't read your own citation, which explicitly supports my claim.
POINT FIVE: HUMANITARIAN SLAVERY! SATURDAYS OFF!
Now comes your wonderful humanitarian defense.
Slaves received Sabbath rest, participated in religious festivals, and enjoyed certain protections against abuse.
WOW!
Saturdays off!
And holidays, too?
Well, why didn't you say so?
That completely makes up for the inconvenient fact that they were slaves!
I mean, even farmers sometimes throw their horses an apple.
Let's review:
· They got Saturdays off. But…they were still slaves.
· They participated in holidays. But…they were still slaves.
· They had some protections against injury. But…they were still slaves.
See where I'm going with this?
By the way, Exodus 20:10 also grants Sabbath rest to livestock. LOL Livestock got the same humanitarian benefits as slaves under the Mosaic law!
And no, foreign slaves did not enjoy the same legal status as Hebrews. We just examined the explicit distinction in Leviticus 25.
I have always wondered something, though.
If a slaveholder beats his slave to death on the Sabbath, would he be executed for breaking the Sabbath?
Hmmmmm.
Point five: Slaves received certain legal protections. They were nevertheless slaves. You keep confusing regulations concerning slavery with the abolition of slavery.
POINT SIX: THE ULTIMATE LOOPHOLE!
Now we come to your supposed knockout argument: Deuteronomy 23:15–16.
You claim this law permitted any abused slave, Hebrew or foreign, to walk into another town and obtain freedom.
You even claim this completely destroyed a slaveholder's property rights.
Oh, this should be good.
First, fugitive-slave laws don't define slavery.
You brought up the American South, so let's use your example.
Africans were enslaved in colonial America long before Congress passed the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.
Were they not slaves until Congress got around to passing that law?
They probably would have liked to have known that.
Second, Deuteronomy 23:15–16 says nothing about abuse being a condition for asylum.
You added that yourself. Nice try.
Third, the passage is widely interpreted by most scholars as protecting slaves escaping into Israel from foreign territories, not as granting every slave owned by an Israelite an unconditional right to walk away.
The language supports it. Verse 16 describes fugitives settling among the Israelites, in their towns, wherever they choose. They were given legal immigrant status, in other words. They were foreigners who had been owned by foreigners.
And the historical context makes it even clearer why this interpretation is plausible. Ancient Near Eastern treaties commonly required rulers to return fugitive slaves crossing political borders. Deuteronomy can reasonably be understood as rejecting that extradition practice.
That's the historical context you keep telling me to study.
Funny how it doesn't support your argument quite as well as you imagined.
Fourth, your interpretation creates a rather spectacular problem with Leviticus 25:44–46.
Apparently, God authorized permanent, hereditary ownership of slaves, but included a universal escape clause allowing them to nullify their owner's claim simply by walking into another town.
Really?
That would be an extraordinary legal arrangement, and you've provided no evidence that the fugitive-slave provision was intended to function that way.
You cannot simply declare that one disputed interpretation of Deuteronomy cancels the express property provisions of Leviticus.
And here's my favorite part.
You accuse me of stripping scripture of its historical context!
Point six: The law most plausibly concerns asylum for slaves entering Israel from foreign territory. It does not establish the universal emancipation clause you've invented.
Nice try, though.
POINT SEVEN: THE FAMILY PLAN
Exodus 21:4–6.
If a master provided a Hebrew debt slave with a wife, the wife and children remained with the master when the man's term of service ended.
You claim this was intended to protect them economically.
Really?
It says nothing of the sort in any verse of any book of the Bible.
The wife and children stayed because they belonged to the master.
You know, like slaves?
And then you describe the man's option to remain permanently enslaved as though it were an upgrade!
An upgrade?
Are you serious?
The man had a choice: freedom without his family, or his family without freedom.
Forever.
And to formalize this wonderful benefits package, his master pierced his ear with an awl at a door or doorpost.
Good old God, always looking out for the little guy.
You want to stay with your wife and children?
No problem!
Just enslave yourself forever!
Easy peasy.
What a marvelous family benefits program.
Call the Nobel committee again!
Point seven: Your supposed humanitarian provision offered a man freedom without his family or permanent enslavement with them.
Not exactly the generous employment contract you seem determined to portray.
FINALLY, YOUR HISTORICAL CONTEXT
You conclude by claiming that the Torah didn't invent slavery but merely inherited an ancient institution and regulated it.
Straw man.
I never claimed the Torah invented slavery.
I said it condoned and legalized slavery.
And I have demonstrated that it did.
Slaves could be purchased, owned for life, and inherited. Corporal punishment was allowed. The law established different treatment for Hebrews and foreigners.
None of this is disputed by pointing out that ancient Israelite slavery differed in some respects from American slavery.
Of course it differed!
But those differences do not turn human property into ordinary employment.
You keep changing the terminology, inventing benevolent motives, and pretending that regulating slavery is the same thing as abolishing it.
It isn't.
So perhaps we should simply call it Mosaic Chattel Slavery to avoid confusion.
Now, here are three challenging questions for you to ignore:
- If Hebrew and foreign slaves enjoyed the same legal status, why does Leviticus explicitly distinguish their treatment and authorize permanent ownership of foreigners?
- You have conceded that foreigners could be purchased and owned permanently. Leviticus 25:46 even permits their inheritance as property. What particular protection do you believe transforms that ownership relationship into ordinary employment?
- If buying, owning, and inheriting human beings isn't slavery, what exactly do you think slavery means?
Those should be easy questions for someone so thoroughly versed in the historical and legal context of scripture.
But I suspect I'll get another sermon about Saturdays off and the importance of dental hygiene.
Yes, good old God, always looking out for the little guy.
Apparently, buying and inheriting human beings was perfectly acceptable under his law, provided everyone remembered to keep the Sabbath and stay away from shrimp.
Not a big fan of shrimp, your God.
But slavery?
Okie dokie!
Bible study is over for today.
Would you like another lesson?