sschlichter

We will try one more time.

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."


This passage does not condone beating a slave. It provides a punishment for beating a slave. Your scenario about how people can get around the law is not relveant. the law's intent is to keep people from beating their slaves. It was counter productive to do so because the owner suffered the loss if he was down for a day. All the drama, repetition, and assumptions on slavery are yours and are not coming for the text.

Slavery is condoned. However, I gave you a range of transactions that all could be called slavery. You failed to give me some examples that prove that the slavery condoned here is akin to slavery in the 1700 Americas. to the contrary I gave you many examples that indicate that the slavery here condoned is that of a bond servant. (one who sells himself into slavery). A hebrew was restricted from selling hiomself into slavery while foreigners were not restricted. It was unlawful to kidnap and take slaves from foreign nations. you could only purchase them. Abraham had 318 men, he feared his inheritance would go to one of them. Was this man more likely a slave in the bond servant sense or in the 1700 American sense?

When a "slave" says this

(Exo 21:5) But if the servant should declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,'
(Exo 21:6) then his master must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

is it impossible that we are talking about a bond servant type relationship here?

He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son. (Proverbs 29:21)

Do you think this passage is an indication that at least in some cases the transaction is different from what you are projecting?

I have provided a few examples that indicate that the slavery being condoned is not the type you are describing. Do you have a text that indicates that it is?

Johnny Skeptic

If Exodus 21:20-21 is referring to Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves, that would mean that Hebrew slaveowners wrongfully abused all slaves.

Toto

This is manifestly untrue. Slaves did not have any economic incentive to work, so the rule was that they could be beaten as an incentive. They just could not be beaten to death. This and many other passages in the Bible condone this sort of treatment.

I give you the words of a modern apologist for Biblical slavery, the Dominionist Institute for Biblical Economics:

If that's not enough for you, consider the words put in Jesus' mouth:

You can read any source on the history of the era.

Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Beryl Rawson, p 153-4 (google books):

That's just the nature of slavery. None of the Biblical writers had either the imagination or the courage or the compassion to challenge it.

Sheshbazzar

We will try one more time.
The Scriptural texts indicate that two types of slavery were practiced among the Hebrew's
There was the bond-servant type of "slave" , one that sold himself, or was sold by his family, into a contractually specified period of service, under a bond-contract,
At the completion of a specific set time of service, this slave/servant again became by Law and by right, a free person, with no further obligation.
No (human) master was the owner of a contractual engaged bond-servant.

The second type of slave was the slave that was taken in war, or purchased in the slave market, this type of slave was the -wholly owned property- of his master,
"....the slave is his property.", literally in the Hebrew, "is his MONEY."
And as fully -owned- property, without restriction could, be bought, sold or traded on the market, or passed on as an inheritance.
The owner owned this slave just as he owned his cow, sheep, or sandals.
These slaves were property, had almost no rights at all under Mosaic law (other than that small limitation on how severely they could be beaten)
They could not, without their owners permission, buy their freedom, if the owner desired they could be held in permanent slavery, along with their children and grandchildren also, these being accounted as the "increase" on their "investment" in slave "breeding stock". "If my cow brings forth a calf, it is mine, if that calf brings forth, it is mine,..."
The Law of Moses condones the beating of this class of slave, the ONLY limitation being that the ".... slave be able stand up after a couple of days"

If the Law did not condone such beatings there would be no point in providing such a specific restriction.

Any slave owner was at liberty to set any servant free, he could release a bond-servant from the requirements of the contract.
And he could at his will grant freedom to any owned servant/slave.

But to take this all to a higher plane,
The pattern is, the bond-servants represent Israel, the bond-servants of YHWH, through the Covenant.
The other nations are all His flocks upon the hills, the wholly owned livestock (slaves) of YHWH,
The Possessor of ALL things, both in heaven and and on earth.
That Mighty Master who has right to grant freedom to whomsoever He will,
And That One Master whom many servant/slaves choose never to leave,
earnestly pleading their love to Him, that they might find favor in His sight
and have their ear thrust through, and be fastened to His "door",
that they might remain in His House forever.

sschlichter

I actually like the quote you supplied.

especially,

this risk was a serious incentive against enslaving oneself. God did not want men to heedlessly abandon their freedom, and this law would tend to keep men working hard and living responsibly in order to avoid the threat of losing their liberty and civil rights.

I actually think it is a good point. It was a way to discourage shortsighted enslaving of oneself. However, I think that it is incorrect to turn that verse into an instruction to beat your slaves. It is a warning not to be too hard on slaves.

As far as the words of jesus, Did you mean to quote a parable?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sschlicter: If Exodus 21:20-21 is referring to Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves instead of just to non-Hebrew slaves, that would mean that Hebrew slaveowners were allowed to wrongfully abuse slaves of all ethnic groups.

Some texts state that Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom, and that non-Hebrew slaves were not guaranteed their freedom, and were considered to be property, and could be willed as an inheritance.

Old Testament writers did not do future generations any favors regarding the issue of slavery. For instance, during the U.S. Civil War, Jefferson Davis was president of the Southern Confederacy. He believed that the Bible approves of involuntary slavery. Whether or not he was wrong, if the Bible had been more clear about slavery, it would have been a big help in the U.S., and in many other countries in the world. Helpful, useful information is always a good thing. It is too bad that the Bible does not contain more helpful, useful information than it does. Of course, no book is useful if people do not have access to it. Millions of people have died without knowing anything about the Bible. Why do you suppose that that has been the case?

sschlichter

Now, if you could provide a reference for this type of slavery. A command to take slaves from war, for example. Also, if you could explain to me how this type of slavery is what is discussed in Exo 21 when it very explicitly refers to those selling themselves into slavery and explicitly condemns the taking of slaves via kidnapping.

"Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death. (Exo 21:16)

Toto

You skipped over the first part, which explained that a slave master had the right, even the duty, to beat his slaves to get them to work.

And please note that the source of this quote advocates a return to Biblical law - including public stonings of rebellious teenagers, adulterers, and other such society offenders.

Does Jesus endorse beating a disobedient slave or not in that quote?

Sheshbazzar

But to take this all to a higher plane,

The pattern is, the bond-servants represent Israel, the bond-servants of YHWH, through the Covenant.

On the redeeming of bondmen and slaves;
"For the people of Israel are My slaves, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt." (Lev 25:55)

"But you, Israel, are My slave, Jacob whom I have chosen,
The descendants of Abraham My friend, whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
and called you from the chief men thereof, and said unto you,
You are My slaves;
I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away. (Isa 41:8-9)

The other nations are all His flocks upon the hills, the wholly owned livestock (slaves) of YHWH,
The Most High El, ("El-El'ee'on") possessor of heaven and earth. (Gen 14:22)

That Mighty Master who has right to grant freedom to whomsoever He will,
And That One Master whom many slaves choose never to leave,
earnestly pledging their love to Him, that they might find favor in His sight
and have their ear thrust through, and be fastened to His "DOOR", (John 10:9)
that they might remain in His House forever. (Deut 15:16-17)

The two classes of "slaves" represent the two classes of "saved",
"Israel" his bondmen, and the "needy" ("ebee'on'eem") "servants" ("obed'eem")
of all the nations of the earth who also love and serve Him.

Do you dispute this?

Sheshbazzar

Start at verse 1. Instructions to Covenanted Hebrews regarding their conduct towards their fellow Covenanted Hebrews,
Not how they treat outsiders to that Covenant.

A Hebrew servant (slave) under Covenant contract to YHWH,
who presumes to steal a fellow Hebrew, who is also a Covenanted slave of YHWH his Master,
is guilty of attempting stealing not simply another man,
but stealing from YHWH, the slave of YHWH. The penalty for stealing from YHWH is Death. (Acts 5:1-10)
Even as latter, for any who should think to steal the "servants" away from their Master.