For popular or very good threads

2 ”If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. 3 If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.

4 “If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. 5 But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ 6 If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.”

—————————

It's really wrong to put someone in this position.

For starters, maybe the ethics could be equally concerned about fairness to the slave. That would make it more of an indentured servitude kind of things.

Then we'd still have to ask what about foreigners, those captured in battle, etc, etc.
Not the best way to show that there was consent involved, but one rule says a slave can run away and not be punished. Found this in Deut. 23:15-16

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

When it comes to selling, there's also this aspect to consider.. did they sell themselves into slavery:
First, none of the “slaves” of the Old Testament could be forced into labor through kidnapping. Exodus 21:16 expressly forbids kidnapping people to keep or sell as slaves, making such acts punishable by death. When other passages speak of “buying” slaves, people may assume that these were auctions of kidnapped slaves held against their will, as with African slaves in the mid-nineteenth century. But even the “buying” of slaves included a voluntary element more akin to indentured servitude, in which slaves often sold themselves into servitude as a form of survival.
In the New International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce points out, “As was the case generally in the Near East, freeborn citizens most frequently fell into slavery through poverty and insolvency.”
Source: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/does-the-bible-support-slavery
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
. . . But even the “buying” of slaves included a voluntary element more akin to indentured servitude, in which slaves often sold themselves into servitude as a form of survival.
In the New International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce points out, “As was the case generally in the Near East, freeborn citizens most frequently fell into slavery through poverty and insolvency.”
Source: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/does-the-bible-support-slavery

I'm disappointed this Catholic site has seemed to latch onto "Bible is perfect."

In contrast, a Catholic said to me, “Jesus didn't leave a diary, he left us a church.”

Meaning, a lot of Catholics are not Bible literalists. But I guess some are and that's okay, too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
My plan —

1) I'm going to look some more at Exodus chapter 21,

2) I'm going to look a medium amount for parts of the Old Testament that talk about Hebrews vs. foreigners as far as slavery and different treatment.
 

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.”

— New Living Translation

—————————————————

Why do we have such a crappy economic system that a man has to sell his daughter in slavery? ! ?

Some protection, but holy cow, it's still a really crummy system. Why can't Mom and Dad supervise the courtside, either more or less strictly?

Why can't they approve of the young man, although maybe not so much at first, but as they get to know him more?

Like "normal."

Well, back then, it wasn't setup that way. It was a very hierarchical society.

But why cement in with your holy book?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.”

— New Living Translation
This is a good example that conflicts with my earlier view as I thought people were volunteering to become slaves to make a living. So I'll have to amend my view there. For now I'll say that the issue here is not that there's force, but rather it's that there's no choice at all (no yes or no option). Here's why:...

While I definitely don't see any consent in the Exodus 21:7-8 passage, but I still see some wiggle room to not call it forced given the culture of that time. Simple reason is that women had no option to choose back then. Before people automatically object to that and say it was cruelty to not give them a choice on every matter where men had a choice, they should probably understand why women had no choice. They had no power or good options to have a choice or to not go along with these things given there was no economic structure in place for women to earn much of a living on their own. Lots of people were probably illiterate so probably no formal education system either for people to empower themselves. The alternative, to resist slavery and arranged marriages, was probably something most women back then could not survive. Not saying it's right, but it was based on a lot of the limitations in knowledge and economic resources of that time.

I came across various sources that tried to explain Ex. 21:7 as being no different than arranged marriages where fathers also sell their daughters into marriage, but the passage says the girl can be sold again. That would not happen to a non-virgin woman and not to mention men were also slaves and no Christian would say boys were sold into slavery for marital reasons.

So I ask myself again, was slavery in the Bible simply indebted servitude?
Clearly, some did not choose to start slavery as some were sold into it by their parents. But if these slaves, including the daughters, had an option to leave it any time they chose (goes with Deut. 23:15-16), then there is consent involved in some areas. That's definitely different than American slavery where slaves could be killed for fleeing their masters.

So yes and no, at worst. It's definitely not all-around chosen (choosing to go into it, choosing their terms, full rights, etc.) as some might lead you to believe nor is it all around forced slavery (forced into it, no choice as to whether or not you remain in it, etc) as others might have you believe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
I came across various sources that tried to explain Ex. 21:7 as being no different than arranged marriages where fathers also sell their daughters into marriage, but the passage says the girl can be sold again.

Some time, I think we need to review positions of believing and devout Christians other than Bible literalism.

Okay, maybe it's not the case that she's being sold again. I say that because verse 8 — “ . . . to be bought back again . . ." To me, this is saying that the young lady's original family can pay back the money.

But I suppose scholars are doing their best to understand ancient Hebrew, and make their best judgement call of what century it was written in? ?? For the shades of meaning of a language certainly do change from century to century.
 
Last edited:
But if these slaves, including the daughters, had an option to leave it any time they chose (goes with Deut. 23:15-16),
Although . . . real life is different than the rules. And the weaker party can be treated badly.

• almost in every system, and if we’re legislators or informal leaders, we need to take this fact of human nature into account
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.”

— New Living Translation

—————————————————

Why do we have such a crappy economic system that a man has to sell his daughter in slavery? ! ?

Some protection, but holy cow, it's still a really crummy system. Why can't Mom and Dad supervise the courtside, either more or less strictly?

Why can't they approve of the young man, although maybe not so much at first, but as they get to know him more?

Like "normal."

Well, back then, it wasn't setup that way. It was a very hierarchical society.

But why cement in with your holy book?
In ancient times if a man wanted to marry a woman, he had to pay a dowry to the girls father. That is what this passage is referring to. Look in verses 8 and 9 and it is clear this is referring to paying a dowry in order to marry the girl or to be a daughter-in-law. This does not mean the women were actual slaves, but purchased to be wives.