| BMaker11 said: There is no "different type of slavery". That's the typical justification. The definition of slavery is "one person owning another person as property". That's what happened in those biblical stories: people owning other people. That is wrong, no matter how you spin it. If it was considered anything else, regarding paying debts, work contracts, etc. it would be considered a job at best, and indentured servitude at worst. But no, it says you can take on slaves. And only Jewish slaves were allowed to be released, after 7 years (this may be what you're referring to, in paying off debts). If your slave was from another nation, you got to keep that man permanently. And pass him down to your kids if you die. (Leviticus 25: 44-46, so yea, they are property). And it's just your "fellow Israelite" that you're not supposed to treat badly. Slaves from other nations though? Not so good. Yea, if you kill your slave, you get get killed as punishment as well.....but you're allowed to beat your slave as long as they survive a day or two days after the beating (Exodus 21: 20-21). So, don't make it seem like they were treated well. Oh, one more: if you allow your slave to marry (while enslaved), and she has kids....you get to keep the kids and wife as slaves, as well. This verse pertains to Hebrew slaves. If that man, who now has a family, doesn't want to give up his family after that 6 years of work.....welp, he gets a piercing to notify that he is a permanent slave (Exodus 21: 2-6) and he serves the master forever. What part of that has anything to do with repaying debts? "Jubilee year"? Well slaves that happen to love their family won't be able to partake in that, because they are permanent slaves for the crime of loving his wife and kids. And are you really trying to justify genocide? Because of what might happen? |
Our definition of slavery is owning another person. Their definition was selling themselves for an agreed upon time, or the next jubilee year. (indentured servitude would be our modern equivalent. Claiming there is no difference because we, 3500 years later, have a different definition of slave doesn't change the original terms)
Looking at the verses immediately following those you quoted in Leviticus, it mentions the slave having the chance to buy back their freedom. Leviticus 25: 47-54 are about the various ways slaves can be released, either themselves, or by family, and that includes, in verse 49 "‘Or if he himself has become wealthy, he may also buy himself back." This means slaves were allowed to have their own assets, and earn their own money, and potentially being able to buy their own freedom was included in the law. Slavery, as it is viewed today, slaves have no assets, if they made any money it would automatically go to their owners.
As for a slave having a wife and kids, they were ALL to be released every 7th year. It's not like only the males were set free. Under circumstances where the times were disparate between how long they were bound under their agreement, one could choose to remain with their master permanently. Again, however, this wasn't the kind of slavery we see from earlier in this country's history. It was a situation many people found favorable, as all Israelites who became slaves did so voluntarily. And that's what it has to do with repaying debts. All Israelites has an inheritance of land which they could cultivate to survive - or sell. If they were forced to sell themselves into slavery, it was likely due to debts they accrued, somehow. (Unless it was simply a more favorable working arrangement) Unlike slaves of today, it being voluntary, they had the opportunity to sell themselves to someone they know treated their slaves well.
As for being allowed to beat your slaves as long as they didn't die for a day or two - this was only regarding being immediately avenged. There were still laws regarding murder, which DID still apply to slaves, and they would still be punished under those laws. If the slave hung on for a few days before dying, maybe the family of the slave was no longer permitted to avenge them, but they were still held accountable to the law.
As for genocide, I'm not trying to justify it based on what MIGHT happen. We are talking about a divine authority, therefore to put the decisions in context, they were made with a foreknowledge of exactly what WOULD happen. How many decisions in war time become very different when you can actually know the ripples they will cause, through the future? And this is assuming you completely ignore God's being able to resurrect those killed.
