Interpreting mentions of slavery in the Bible

Faith & Science Conversation
101

Chattel:

  • an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (such as buildings) connected with real property
  • an enslaved person held as the legal property of another

Chattel slavery:

  • Slavery in which a person is owned as a chattel

That’s straightforward. Any system of slavery in which slaves are considered to be property is chattel slavery.

Leviticus 25:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

That’s also straightforward. Foreign slaves can be bought and sold, are permanent possessions, and can be inherited. They are considered to be property. So according to Leviticus, foreign slaves are chattel slaves, and Biblical slavery includes chattel slavery.

That should be the end of the discussion.

However, some people are reluctant to admit that the Bible sanctioned chattel slavery, and come up with excuses to avoid acknowledging that this is the case from the definition of chattel slavery.

Exodus provides some unneeded confirmation:

Exodus 21:

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

(translations vary on whether they use ‘slave’ vs ‘servant’ in this passage, but the NIV is clear which sections of Ex21 apply to servants and which to slaves).

Verses 28-32 provide further confirmation by distinguishing the consequences of a bull goring a man/woman/son/daughter vs goring a slave; in the former case the bull’s owner is executed, but in the latter they are only fined.

But again, this shouldn’t be needed.

Several excuses have been given for why Biblical slavery should not be considered chattel slavery, but none hold up to scrutiny:

  1. Verses concerning treatment of Hebrew servants/slaves. The Bible has different laws for Hebrews vs foreigners. Anyone citing verses about treatment of Hebrews to argue that Biblical slavery of foreigners is not chattel slavery is simply being dishonest.

  2. Kidnapping being forbidden, Even if this applies to non-Hebrews, it is irrelevant to any slave who wasn’t kidnapped, e.g. those born into slavery or purchased from foreigners. Restricting the routes to slavery does not affect the chattel status of those that are enslaved by permitted routes.[1]

  3. Not returning escaped slaves. Even if this applies to slaves in Israel rather than just slaves escaping to Israel, it doesn’t mean that slaves are not chattel since it only applies to slaves that have successfully escaped from their masters, and implies that slaves have to escape before they can be considered not to be chattel, and hence are chattel unless they escape.[2]

  4. Slaves can’t be forced to work on the Sabbath, mutilated, or killed. Laws concerning what slave-owners can do with or to their property do not mean that slaves are not property, any more than laws about noise pollution, motor insurance and animal cruelty[3] don’t mean that radios, cars and pets/livestock are not property. Laws that include confiscation of property as a consequence of misusing or abusing it do not negate it being property.

  5. Foreign slaves of Hebrews were treated better and had more rights than slaves of surrounding nations or slaves in the Americas. Better-treated chattel slaves are still chattel slaves. The rights of foreign slaves did not include the right to stop being a slave.

  6. The bible is being read literally rather than in context. The context is a world where chattel slavery was common.

Bottom line: The Bible permits foreign slaves to be purchased, held and inherited as property. That is the definition of chattel slavery. The only way to claim that Biblical law does not include chattel slavery is to ignore the definition of chattel or the words of the Bible.

  1. Note that Ex 21:16 is only about punishment for the kidnappers; it says absolutely nothing about what should be done regarding victims who have already been sold. ↩︎

  2. This is the least ineffective of the arguments against chattel slavery, but the consequences of it applying to slaves of Hebrews as well as foreign refugees are sufficiently absurd to discount this. ↩︎

  3. I was going to say that modern laws concerning the treatment of animals are stricter than Biblical laws concerning the treatment of slaves, but having looked up the relevant US laws this may not be the case in the US. ↩︎

3 Likes
102

No it does not.

The Bible records the instances of slavery and the cultural rules that governed it. The Bible does not pass judgement on it.

Many of the “laws” in the Old Testament have been overturned, officially or unofficially both within Scripture and outside of it.

The Bible cannot permit or deny anything. it has no being, or self intelligence, or independent thought. Just as AI is programmed, so is Scripture. It was written.

Now, how someone accepts or uses Scripture is another story altogether, and one that is not agreed or certain.

Richard

1 Like
103

The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai, … “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you …

YOU MAY buy slaves.

That’s not just recording instances and cultural rules, that’s granting permission.[1]

Ignoring the words of the Bible: 1
Redefining ‘chattel’: 0.

  1. A goalpost move to slave purchase being permitted previously but no longer will be treated as an admission of lying about whether the Bible passed judgement. ↩︎

104

:slightly_smiling_face:

You did not read my answer properly. You just continued your misguided view on how to understand the Bible.

Tell me, assuming you have children, are the rules the same for a two year old, a six year old, a teenager, a young adult and so on?

What was allowed for one group may not be the same as the next generation, let alone farther up the time line. The Bible is not static. Neither is it a book of rules and permissions.

I suggest you stick to science where you have more knowledge and understanding.

Richard

1 Like
105

Goalpost move, as predicted. The Bible does, or did, pass judgement on slavery.

106

That is the relevant answer.

There are no goalposts

Richard

107

So you think there is no such thing as “written permission” and that law codes aren’t binding unless transmitted verbally.

If you want to be excessively pedantic, feel free to subsititute “The author of that part of the Bible stated that God passed judgement on slavery.”

Now you’ll have to find a different excuse to avoid commenting on whether the treatment of foreign slaves described in Leviticus would qualify as chattel slavery

But you tried to move them anyway. It is not the goalposts that move, it is only yourself.[1]

  1. Let’s see if the second cultural reference gets a more thematic response than the first. ↩︎

108

I never said that. You are trying to generalise.

No. The author recorded that information. There is no judgement call.

Why. I am not interested in what type of slavery it was. it was slavery.

:woozy_face:

Get a life.

If there are no goal posts to move, how can I move them?

Find someone else to mock and criticise.

Richard

109

The twist of Slavery in that it is a Blessing for the good of Both the Owners and the Slaves(Jon C. Calhoun). This is Man’s determination of the Discernment of the Greater Good. The only condition is You take away the Will of the Individual, given No Choice of Free Will.

We are to have Dominion over animals are Us Humans Animals? is also a question of Man’s discernment. The Us Constitution had a controversial 3/5ths description as for So-called taxing not meaning 3/5ths of a Man. It was removed after the Civil War.

This is always a question of Discernment!

110

Successfully, since your ‘argument’ applies equally well to any written material:

The [US constitution] cannot permit or deny anything. it has no being, or self intelligence, or independent thought. Just as AI is programmed, so is [the Constitution]. It was written

That you don’t realise the consequences of your own ‘arguments’ is not my problem.

Apparently you don’t know what the words “you may” mean.

Then you shouldn’t have responded to a post about what type of slavery it was.

If you don’t want me to criticise your nonsense, then don’t reply to my posts. No-one forced you to comment on what I wrote, so don’t complain about the consequences.

Stay in your own bed and believe what you want to believe. Don’t ask how deep the rabbit-hole goes.[1]

  1. Strike three? ↩︎

1 Like
111

Are you confused? Or are you actually promoting racism and slavery?

112

No, I know we are to have a free will, no Slavery. I’m just pointing out why it exists of others justification for it. It’s all a matter of troublesome agreement and dis-agreement of what is correct.

113

Nope.

The Bible is not a set of Laws or permissions.

Before you try and generalise you need to identify the type of writing. That may be difficult, in this case, because Scripture is not a single type of writing.

You are just continuing your misunderstanding of the nature of Scripture.

I never have. I did not get involved in that part of the discussion.

:smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

O wow.

I am reluctant to use the word arrogant…

but your self confidence and vanity are something else.

No one could be as wrong as you claim I am.

Richard

114

I’m glad - I was worried for a moment there.

115

You responded to this post, which concerned what type of slavery was described in Leviticus.

Perhaps you didn’t read it.

116

I never mentioned the type of slavery. You are making false claims about me.

Richard

117

Does anyone else think I need to defend myself against this ridiculous allegation?

118

Does anybody care?

Find another quote where I specifically mention “chattel” (I had to look up the spelling to quote it), and refute it, and I will back down.

(I will give you a clue. I do not dispute that Levitican slavery is chattel slavery, and never have. They were bought and sold as property,)

Richard

119

I’ll give you a clue. I didn’t say you mentioned “chattel”. I said you “responded to a post about what type of slavery it was”.

You did.

So it wasn’t a false claim, and unless some-one else responds, I am not wasting any more of my time on this.

120

:rofl:
:enraged_face:

You are incredible!

You brought up chattel, not me. And you suggested that I was involved in that specific part of the conversation. I was not.

I had no reason to comment, because I agreed with you!

You got confused, again, but refuse to admit it. You are so obsessed with putting me down.

I suggest that you keep better track of the conversations and not just rely on your memory or the last post
(There is irony there)

Richard