It's already been covered on this forum that God allowed slave owners to beat their slaves nearly to death, so long as the slave can get up a few days later (Exodus 21:20-21).
It follows logically that God was okay with forcing females slaves to have sex, since in that very passage I quoted, the Bible refers to slaves as "property".
Also, there are Biblical texts were showing it was okay to order women to have sex: Genesis 16, Sarah gives her husband her maid, Hagar, to have sex with and conceive children. Genesis 30, Rachel gives her female servant to her husband to impregnate and take the child for her own. Leah, also married to Jacob, does the same with her own servant.
Keep in mind that some versions use the word "slave" instead of servant:
"Sarai told Abram, “The Lord has not allowed me to have children, so sleep with my slave." (ERV)
"she took her slave Zilpah and gave her to Jacob" (GW Translation)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@vivify
I only have time for this sentence at the moment.
It's already been covered on this forum that God allowed slave owners to beat their slaves nearly to death, so long as the slave can get up a few days later (Exodus 21:20-21).
The NET Bible translated this way:
Exodus 21:20-21 - "If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she des as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished [naqam] . However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished [naqam], for he has suffered the loss."
Some translations, translating slave invoke modern sensibilities that one human being is OWNED by another as a possession, ie. like farm equipment. This impression is reinforced when some English translations render loss as property. The literal meaning I am told is money.
Is the Bible teaching the servant is not a person of value but only a commodity?
The Old Testament upholds the personhood of the dept-servant.
All men are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26,27)
The oldest book Job (a godly man living around the time of Abraham) establishes the dignity of a servant.
"If I despised the cause of my servant or my maid when they contended with me, What then will I do when God rises up? Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And was it not One who fashioned us in the womb?" (Job 31:13-15)
Both master and servant equally were made by God and entitled to justice.
See also Deut.15:1-18. Exodus 21:20-21 is not an exception
to this.
If the master kills the servant in striking him the penalty is capital punishment. The verb naqam always indicates the death penalty in the Old Testament. The ESV translates it as "avenged". The murder of the slave is to be judicially avenged with the death penalty. That is reinforced by taking of a life for life in Exodus 21:23-24)
cont. below
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Unlike a spear or a sword a staff or a rod wasn't a weapon designed for killing a person. And there is no divine COMMAND to beat any servant with such a instrument.
So provision is made IF one so beaten by an angry master did not immediately die from its use. Provision is made IF such a one attacked dies two or three days afterwards. Provision made by God is not God COMMANDING - "Thou shalt beat a servant so he dies a few days latter."
Provision is also made for divorces and other things that would occur in a ancient society. Benefit of a doubt was given to the master that he did not intend to murder the servant. He just went too far in the loss of his temper.
Permanent injury to the servant like the loss of an eye or tooth was to result in the dept servant to be let go free. That is dept free release of the injured servant.
Comparing the law of Moses to the other ancient Near East laws such as the Code of Hammurabi such a servant was better off. The dignity of the dept slave was NOT upheld to the same degree.
The passage says the slave is the master's "money" or "property" because the contractual relationship between the two suggests an employee/employer relationship to get the debtor out of dept by working in the household of master. It is not that the servant is chattel. The employer / the master stood to LOSE MONEY if he mistreated his servant thus. His money bag was negatively effected by the overly harsh treatment of the servant.
If the slave was only property without human dignity they it would not have been death for the death. Murder was murder between two human beings of equal worth before God in Israel.
My time is limited this morning. Latter I can discuss this more. Suffice it to say not that though these laws were not perfect they were markedly better than other ancient Near East laws of surrounding societies.
Be back latter.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
@sonship
Go on then, explain away Lev 25: 44-46:
“‘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 and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 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."
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIts nice for the well to do, living in a western country, having all the luxuries of life, sometimes at the expense of the poorer nations, talk about slavery in the bible being wrong. The purpose of this kind of slavery, as distinct from the kind practiced by people in North American and Europe, is to enable a mutually beneficial relationship to develop. One group needed workers, and another group had nothing but their own labour to sell and lived in poverty,
@sonship
Go on then, explain away Lev 25: 44-46:
“‘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 and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 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."
Maybe if rich western nations who live off the fat of the earth, and who routinely waste food, had some humility and some compassion they would have practiced this kind of slavery. There are people dying all over the world because they have no food to eat, nowhere to live, no health care, and their children have no future. Many would happily grab at the opportunity to become a lifetime slave in a western country., because the alternative is death by starvation.
@vivify saidYour entire post is full of misinformation and outright lies and I think you are aware of that. It just goes to show how far some people will go to attempt to discredit the bible and Christians. You sell your soul, abandon your conscience to post lies.
It's already been covered on this forum that God allowed slave owners to beat their slaves nearly to death, so long as the slave can get up a few days later (Exodus 21:20-21).
It follows logically that God was okay with forcing females slaves to have sex, since in that very passage I quoted, the Bible refers to slaves as "property".
Also, there are Biblical texts wer ...[text shortened]... th my slave." (ERV)[/i]
"she took her slave Zilpah and gave her to Jacob" (GW Translation)
First before I point out your lies, what is your problem? This has been going on for weeks now. On the surface it appears you have a problem with Christians, but I suspect it goes deeper. You have a problem with slavery of the type practiced by American Christians a couple hundred years ago, where slave masters abused their slaves and had sex with them, producing race of mulattoes or mixed breed children. Do you come from such a line of mulattoes? Was your great grand fatier a white slave master who bred your great grandmother and used Christianity to justify his actions. Well those who read the bible in those days would know there is no justification from God for doing that. People fail to read the bible, you included.
Lie #1 - Rachel gave her servant to Jacob. Here you imply some kind of force. The bible says they got married. Clearly the servant consented
And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.(Genesis 30:4 KJV)
Jacob married the maid
Lie #2 - Sarah
And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. (Genesis 16:3 KJV)
Abram married Hagar
Lie #3 Leah
When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. (Genesis 30:9 KJV)
Jacob married Zilpah
Stupid Conclusion 1 :
It follows logically that God was okay with forcing females slaves to have sex,
What a totally stupid conclusion, and you have the brass-face to call that logical, you brainless half-breed moron
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Go on then, explain away Lev 25: 44-46:
“‘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 and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 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."
First I would say that God reminded the Israelites that they themselves were once oppressed sojourners in Egypt. Therefore they should remember and be considerate towards non-Israelite foreign sojourners in THIER land of Israel.
"The sojourner who sojourns with shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt; I am Jehovah your God." (Lev. 19:35,35)
This considerate treatment is reinforced in Deut. 19:10
"He [Jehovah] executes justice for the orphan and the widow and He loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt." (Duet. 19:9,10)
"And you shall REMEMBER that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and that Jehovah your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; . . . " (Deut. 5:15)
In other words - "If a foreigner becomes poor among you having to be a debt servant, REMEMBER what is was for YOU to be a SLAVE in Egypt needing God's deliverance."
This is what God said OUGHT to be. As we know they often failed to be what they OUGHT to have been by God's law.
"And you shall REMEMBER that you were a SLAVE in the land of Egypt and that Jehovah your God ransomed you; THEREFORE I am commanding you this thing today." (Deut. 15:15)
The "this" there is the law concerning Hebrew man or woman sold into debt slavery. They were to be released from all debt every seven years. (v.12,13). Though this is concerning fellow Israelites, I think it is still noteworthy that remembrance of their foreign status as slaves in Egypt is commanded.
Now, I think I have to turn more attention to foreigners who among the Israelites who became debt slaves and slaves taken in wars with foreign nations. Below . . .
@rajk999 saidThe Bible clearly says those women were given, implying lack of choice. Those women weren't asked, they were commanded.
Your entire post is full of misinformation and outright lies and I think you are aware of that. It just goes to show how far some people will go to attempt to discredit the bible and Christians. You sell your soul, abandon your conscience to post lies.
First before I point out your lies, what is your problem? This has been going on for weeks now. On the surface it appears ...[text shortened]... stupid conclusion, and you have the brass-face to call that logical, you brainless half-breed moron
Your entire argument seems to be that if a woman is forced to get married, sex is no longer rape. I don't even need to explain what's wrong with this.
@vivify saidOpinion, misinformation, and lies is all you have. Why did you leave out that fact that the bible said they were wives and not servants or slaves?
The Bible clearly says those women were given, implying lack of choice. Those women weren't asked, they were commanded.
Your entire argument seems to be that if a woman is forced to get married, sex is no longer rape. I don't even need to explain what's wrong with this.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Go on then, explain away Lev 25: 44-46:
“‘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 and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 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."
The verses I submitted are a sample of more instances when God wanted the treatment of strangers in the land of Israel to be shaped by their recollection of their slavery in Egypt.
It however is the case that the laws for THAT land of Israel were tailored to KEEP the possession of the land in the hands of Israelites or those who converted to the theocratic nation. The entire book of Ruth showed the OUGHTNESS of a foreigner returning with her mother-in-law, both of them vulnerable and destitute.
Boaz a godly man fearing God's laws did not mistreat Ruth but treated her with the utmost respect.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
But the foreigner slave did have a lower rank than an Israelite servant. This was not an ideal arrangement. Sometimes the foreigner refused to be assimilated into Israel. The theocratic ways and customs were not adopted by such a foreigner. The covenant relationship with Israel's God was NOT sought. Israel's ways were not embraced. The example of the Moabitess Ruth was not always the case.
If such a foreign servant did not choose to live elsewhere after debt servitude the laws of Moses were not designed that the ownership of the land could pass over to them.
Though Israelites may have not been as nice to such foreign slaves still anti-harshness was written into their law from God to be considered.
The foreign employee must be paid promptly for their service as an employee.
Ie "You shall not oppress a poor or needy hired servant among your brothers OR AMONG THE SOJOURNERS WITH YOU, who are in your land within your gates.
On the day he earns it, you shall give him his wages, and the sun shall not go down upon it (for he is poor and his life depends on it) lest he cry against you to Jehovah and it become sin in you." (Deut. 24:14,15)
I think consideration should have spilled over some to just treatment of the foreign debt slave.
Deut 23:15-16 concerning a run away slave pertained (I think) to Israelite and foreign slaves. If a foreign slave was being so mistreated by his master he could run away to another Israelite city and seek protection.
"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him you shall not mistreat him." (Deut. 23:15-16)
I do not see as yet an exception for the alien slave from the instructions to love the alien (Deut. 10:19), provide for the basic needs of an impoverished alien (Deut. 24:18-22).
Comparing the Law of Moses to the Code of Hammurabi no such concern for the well-being of a foreign slave. It has no regard for an owner's treatment of his slaves.
The prophet Amos shows God scolding Israel for oppression. I don't see that exception is made for the alien or foreign poor slave.
"Thus says Jehovah, Because of three transgressions of Israel, Indeed, because of four, I will not turn away the PUNISHMENT; Because they have sold the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. " (Amos 2:6)
The only stipulation I read is that the oppressed one is needy whoever that one is.
"Hear this, you who pant after the needy to destroy the wretched of the earth, . . . " (Amos 8:6)
Though laws did not let the land pass easily over to foreigners in Israel who did not embrace the covenant or the God of the nation, I see no disqualifying them from merciful consideration in their poverty.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It's already been covered on this forum that God allowed slave owners to beat their slaves nearly to death, so long as the slave can get up a few days later (Exodus 21:20-21).
What you say was proved I think was not.
It is not consistent. If the slave had NO dignity, NO human worth then for killing him capital punishment should NOT have been instituted for the murdering master.
1.) Let the killing master go completely unpunished.
2.) But punish the wounding master
This is your theory. But consistency would argue that either both cases had the master guiltless or both scenarios held the master accountable.
I think the law is saying that if the master is so stupid as to be short of a laborer because he is sick from a wounding, it is his own dumb fault. He is punishing himself effectively because the laborer is his means of financial benefit.
It follows logically that God was okay with forcing females slaves to have sex, since in that very passage I quoted, the Bible refers to slaves as "property".
I could not make this leap without consulting the laws concerning courtship and marriage. Is rape allowed there? No.
You're saying, rape of the non-Israelite women is commanded by God or at least winked at. I think that won't hold up.
Lev. 19:33-34:
"When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong."
Is rape doing the stranger wrong?
"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself."
But you say raping the stranger is what God wants regardless.
" . . . for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the the Lord your God."
If a Hebrew woman was raped by an Egyptian man - remember how bad that was. DON'T do the same thing Israel.
What about laws regulating forcing sex on a non-free woman?
"Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave [i.e., servant] acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. He shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. (Lev. 19:20-21)
The man is clearly guilty of adultery. He is taking advantage of his position over the female servant girl. David didn't get off from his taking advantage of Bethsheba. That was like a statutory rape between a powerful seducing master and a weaker and vulnerable servant girl.
Though some less then totally clear things are left to debate, like the issue of engagement, the general tenor of the law was men were to have self control over their passions.
I reject any insinuation that God ordained or approved of rape in any regard. The previous chapter 18 of Leviticus is dedicated to self control in marriage and sex. What the Canaanites did Israel was not to do.
"You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt; and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, nor walk in their ways."
Vivify is arguing the opposite - that Israel was to be exactly like the nations with their orgies, incest, rapes, animal sex, temple sex, homosexual sex, etc. etc.
What God said they OUGHT to be was different not just the same.