Slavery and the Law of Moses

Oldhermit it doesnt say about the treatment as you put it, is forced labour.

Its just if someone buys a foreigner, they buy them for life. But the thing is, they can be bought back if they have a redeemer of their own brethren.

Do you understand. Amongst the Hebrews themselves they were told not to go buying and selling each other. They could hire themselves but they had to have contracts in place for seven years or so. It wasnt for life. But if they wanted to be theres for life they could do so if they pierced their ears.

If you understand why Jesus came, he came to set the captives free. Anybody bound, he could free, cos he paid for them by his own blood. He is our redeemer.

Regardless of whether we prefer the word slave or bondsman, we are still confronted with the description of such a person. In Lev 25, they are still regarded as a permanent possession. indentured servants were not. They are still bought an sold, an indentured servant could not be bought or sold. They could be inherited as part of an estate, an indentured servant could not. They could be severely beaten, an indentured servant could not. They were considered property, the indentured servant was not.

It isnt a case of preferring one word over the other. And then you keep changing the words to 'indentured servant' when none of the translations even say this.
Where does it say they could be severely beaten?

You have given no scripture for this.

“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." This could not be said of an indentured servant. If you so much as struck an indentured servant so that he lost a tooth or an eye, he or she was to be set free in payment for the loss. Israel was permitted to beat a slave but they were not permitted to kill a slave. Not even the murder of a slave was condoned by the Law.

The bondmen and bondsmaid for the Israelites, were always foreigners, they could rule over. With rigour doesnt mean they could beat them up. It just means they could be strict with them and make all the rules.

If the best scholarly minds in the Hebrew language says that slave is a proper rendering of the word, they I do not think you or I with our meager language skills have the expertise to challenge them on that point.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance renders the word as "handmaid, bondwoman, maidservant. Apparently a primitive word; a maid-servant or female slave -- (hand-)bondmaid(-woman), maid(-servant)."

Uh, what scripture you dont give any reference, thats not in Leviticus 25.

Would it be also referring to wives, because many men saw their wives as property, meaning they could beat them up, but not kill them. And if they were foreign, seems more excuse to treat them badly.

No am not disupting that but then you keep talking about indentured servants and the bible doesnt say that they are indentured. My bible days they are hired.

You just keep mixing up the terms. Its confusing. Can you just stick to one or the other.

My apologies, that is Exodus 21:20-21.

Thats scripture you posted is in exodus 21:20-21

BUT it is completely different wording in kjv.

It says and if a man smite his servant, or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.

And exodus 21 all is referring to Hebrew servants.

It is not referring to slaves or bondmen - foreigners.

Also, its not justifying smiting a servant, certianly they used rods as correction but its not saying well you can just go and smite your servants! Its saying IF. Not meaning go and smite your servants.

Perhaps it would simply be better if I started at the beginning. Let me just try to lay it all out for you.

Release of the indentured servant, 12-18

“If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. When you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the Lord your God has blessed you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore, I command you this today.”

“It shall come about if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he fares well with you; then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also, you shall do likewise to your maidservant.”

“It shall not seem hard to you when you set him free, for he has given you six years with double the service of a hired man; so, the Lord your God will bless you in whatever you do.”

It must be understood here that the release of an indentured servant has nothing to do with the sabbath-year release of debt. This is an entirely separate issue. Anyone who owed money to a creditor was to be released from his debt. However, one who had indentured himself was required to serve his master for six years. The seventh year sabbath did not release the servant from his service.

1. The wisdom of this law was to insure the nation would not be turned into a nation of slaves as they had been in Egypt.
2. This law would certainly seem to discourage the idea of indentured servitude for debt. If at the beginning of the seventh year, I not only had to release the servant, I also had to give him generously from my flock, my threshing floor, and from my wine vat in order to give him a fresh start, it would wind up costing me more than I loaned to him in the first place. It would have been much cheaper on me to simply forgive the debt. What this amounted to, was reimbursing him or her for six years of service.

The indentured servitude of the early American colonies seemed to have been somewhat patterned after the statutes in Deuteronomy 15.

“White indentured servants came from all over Great Britain. Men, women, and sometimes children signed a contract with a master to serve a term of 4 to 7 years. In exchange for their service, the indentured servants received their passage paid from England, as well as food, clothing, and shelter once they arrived in the colonies. Some were even paid a salary. When the contract had expired, the servant was paid freedom dues of corn, tools, and clothing, and was allowed to leave the plantation. During the time of his indenture, however, the servant was considered his master’s personal property and his contract could be inherited or sold. Prices paid for indentured servants varied depending on skills.”

One major difference between the statute of Great Britton and the Law of Moses was that under the Law of Moses, the indentured servant was not considered property as was a slave. With indentured servitude, the master contracted for the servant's services, not the person himself. With a slave, on the other hand, that slave was considered property and could be bought, sold, and even transferred as part of an estate.

It may have also been the practice to pay wages to the indentured servant while he was in your service but, I cannot find anything in the Law that expressly required this. The closest thing to this is the statement made in Leviticus 25:40 that could possibly suggest this. By the same token, there is nothing in the Law that would prohibition the Master from the payment of wages which would certainly be an act of generosity.

3. The treatment of the indentured servant was strictly regulated.
He was not to be treated as the slave who was a foreigner. When a fellow Hebrew sold himself to you for his debt, this was really nothing more than a long-term labor contract between you and the debtor. Leviticus 25:39-46 says, “If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave’s service. He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God.” This same law of indentureship also seems to have applied to the foreigner as well.

While Israel had the right to use harsh treatment on slaves acquired from other nations, they were not permitted to treat one another with severity, not even an indentured servant. An indentured servant was never to be considered as a slave and it was not permitted to treat him as such. “But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall NOT rule with severity over one another.” 46.

Harsh treatment of a Hebrew servant could cost you his service. Exodus 21:26-27 says, “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.”

The loss of an eye or a tooth of a servant would cost the master his servant. The eye and the tooth represent two extreme polls of importance. The eye was regarded as the most valuable part of one's body that could be taken. The tooth was regarded as the most expendable. Thus, this ordinance would certainly apply to any permanent injury done to any part of the servant's body.

The servant was not allowed in such cases, to demand equal satisfaction from his master. The law of an eye for an eye did not apply to the master/servant relationship. The servant could not demand the eye of his master in payment for his own eye, or tooth for tooth. He was however, required to be compensated by being allowed to go free. Not only would he go free but, he would also receive his due wages of release. This law protected the dignity of the servant and also restricted the brutality of those masters who were so inclined toward cruelty.

The difference between the indentured servant and the slave from another country was that the slave could be beaten almost to death for some displeasure to his master, and that was the master’s right. But, if you struck a servant and knocked out his tooth, you just lost your servant. You were not permitted to treat a fellow Hebrew with such indignity.

The law of indentured servitude was a good law. It protected the poor from destitution and offered them an opportunity for dignified survival. It preserved the dignity of the poor by preventing them from being reduced to begging in the streets. The limitations of the law protected them against extended and perhaps unwarranted length of servitude as well as cruel treatment.

1. Treatment of the female indentured servant, Exodus 21:7-11

“If man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”

She is not to be sent away at the end of the six years as the male servant because she occupies a different role in the household. She is married to the master.

a. If she displeases the master, he cannot simply send her away. He must allow her to be redeemed by another Israelite, perhaps even her own father. This latter is probably the least likely of the two possibilities for redemption because poverty would have more than likely been why she is sold in the first place, Leviticus 25:39. He does not have the right to sell her to a foreign people because she belongs to the Lord. Notice: it is the master who is being unfair in returning her. She is not regarded as the offender because she has no control over herself nor her master.
b. If her master gives her to his son as a wife, he is then to treat her as a daughter.
c. If her husband should take another wife, she is not to be reduced of food, clothing, or conjugal rights. These are her rights as a wife. In other word, she was to receive all the rights and privileges of a wife. Violation of any of this constituted a breach of contract and she would be free to go out without having to purchase her release.
d. This would not of course apply to female slaves taken from other nations because Israel was forbidden to take wives of those nations. They could keep them as slaves but, they could not marry them. No female slaves could be taken by the master as a wife nor could he give to his son as a wife.

2. The bond-servant who refused to leave must remain a servant for the remainder of his or her life.
The choice of leaving could be surrendered by the servant. He could deny his freedom and choose to remain a servant in that household. He could choose to stay either for the love of his master or for the love of his own family. If he chose to remain, he was then to be taken before the magistrates. This matter had to be witnessed as a legally binding agreement between both parties. He must then be literally nailed to the doorpost of the house through the ear. This signified that the servant was now a permanent part of the master’s house. He was not a slave but a servant in the household. This was almost like an adoption. As such, he was to serve that house for the rest of his or her life.

Josephus and other Jewish commentators suggest that the law of Jubilee overruled this contract which may be possible but, it seems very unlikely as this was a legally binding covenant agreement between the two parties as a "forever" pledge. The servant was no longer staying out of obligation but by choice, and that was his right. Just as with the forgiveness of debt, the law of release did not apply to the indentured stranger/foreigner. He could be required to continue in service until the debt was paid or the master was satisfied.

Slavery in Israel, Leviticus 25

A. Regarding the treatment of actual slaves was much different than that of a bondservant. No Hebrew could enslave another Hebrew for any reason but, this did not apply to the purchase of foreign slaves.

The subject of slavery is a rather prickly one in this country and has been even since before our emancipation from Great Britton. The issue of slavery stirred a lot of deep feelings on both sides of the argument and the result was the division of the states and a civil war that lasted four years. In the end, and by the grace of the Almighty, slavery was abolished in this country.

The debate over the validity of slavery served as a catalyst that shifted the educational foundation of America from theology and religion to one rooted in science. This shift of the educational focus was the result of a reassessment of moral and religious values in Civil War America, and the issue of slavery was at the root of it. Deeply rooted values and beliefs were all coming under fire and those opposed to the idea of slavery could find no solace in scripture because scripture never condemns the practice. It did however, regulate the treatment of slaves. When men’s ideas of morality cannot be supported by revelation, they simply disregard revelation. Let me give you an example.

Because of his experiences in the war, Oliver Wendell Holmes began to question the validity of a religious value systems altogether. He even came to believe that matters of right and wrong could not be based upon eternal principles but must instead be based upon human circumstances. This separation of values from revelation resulted in his conclusion that truth was individually subjective and therefore unknowable, inconsistent, and undefinable. In order to resolve the matter, the Bible was simply pushed aside and replaced by human rationalism. Right and wrong was then defined by situational ethics. But, that’s enough about American history. How was the practice of slavery regulated in Israel?

Unlike the indentured servant, slaves were regarded as property and could be bought and sold. Leviticus 25:44-46, “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.”

B. They could be more harshly treated but, even the treatment of a slave had its bounds.
You could beat them severely but, you could not kill them for any displeasure. You do not have the right to murder, not even a slave. Exodus 21:20-21, “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.”

Why was no vengeance to be taken if the slave died after the fact? Because, this goes to motive. If the servant died during the course of the beating, then the intent of murder must be assumed, in which case the master was then subject to the judgment of the court. If the servant died days later as a result of the beating, then the intent of murder could not be assumed and no vengeance was to be taken because the slave was his property and the discipline of that slave was within his rights.

Please, just look at the text. If he beats the slave to such a degree that later dies, he would not be charged because the slave is his property and as the Master, he had the right to administer punishment, even punishment so sever that the slave later died. It was forbidden to treat an indentured servant is this manner.

If you just stick to one translation, you wont be confused.

Also you wont see any justification whatsoever for beating up a servant. Whether its hebrew, or heathen. False dichotomy.

The laws are for the israelites to treat each other fairly and justly. But they also, did not imply well these laws are for you but you can sin all you like with foreigners.

No, agin you are adding to whats there.
It does not say he has the right to administer punishment, it says IF.

Do you understand its not saying go beat up your servants. Its saying the worst case scenario and what will happen IF you smite a servant. Its not saying you are allowed to do this!!

Of course IF that happened and the servant survived, he cant be punished because the servant still needs to work for their master.

Well, I have done the best I can do to try to explain this to you. I am sorry you cannot see it. One lesson we learn in life is that the things we search for diligently are very often hidden in plain site. I think I have spent all the time I care to on this. Perhaps one day it will sink in for you.

Further down in exodus 21:26-27 it does say the master shall let his srvant go free! Thats IF he smites their eyes or teeth.

So, you false dichotomy treatments of indentured servant vs foreign slave is wrong.

No im sorry you cant see it. You consistently interpret things to make them what you want to mean and add your own interpetation on top.

I have tried to explain to you using scripture that is plain ie. KJV. It means what it says.