How to Treat a Servant

[rhutchin]

Originally, Anaximanchild said, "Pre-Civil War American slaveowners used to beat their slaves severely with a lash if they didn't do as they were told (a practice permitted by the bible, as it turns out). Nowadays, that behavior is thought of as cruel and vicious.

I responded, "There is nothing in the Bible that would permit this."

Then PyramidHead said
Come on, man, this is what I'm talking about. Three word Google search: OLD TESTAMENT SLAVERY. First result of about 421,000:

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 [property]. Exodus 21:20-21

After some back and forth--
rhutchin:

I'd love to hear your interpretation of the legalitites set up by the creator of every galaxy regarding how Middle Eastern men a few thousand years ago ought to dish it out to their servants. Alas, that would be off-topic and the subject of another thread. Would you care to start one? It would clear up a lot of misunderstanding, if you're correct and the verse is not what it seems.

So, here are some legalitiues on the treatment of one's servants.


If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. (Exodus 21:1)

The seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. (Exodus 20:10)

He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death...And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. (Exodus 21:12-20)

If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. (Exodus 21:26)

And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth. (Exodus 21:27)

A poor man could go to a rich man and offer to be his servant. The length of service could be no longer than 7 years at a time. A price would be agreed upon and paid up front extablishing the rich man's investment in the servant. So, the poor man is under contract and has received his money (presumably to pay off debts that he or his family have accrued) and must work the 7 years. What happens if he is lazy and refuses to do the work assigned to him? It seems that the rich man can apply some corporal punishment. Yet, he does not want to loose his investment and he does not want to kill or disfigure the servant. Yet, if he does have the servant beated and the servant works another day or two but then dies, then he has lost his servant and his investment but is not charged with the servant's death.

So, what is wrong with this system other than that you don't personally like it?

[Manwe]

Thats all "wrong" ever is. There is no objective morality, and the only reason anything is wrong is because we define it as such, because we do not agree with the action.

[Gawen]

Let's expand your Ex 21:1.

Exodus 21:2-6: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Hostage taking anyone? I also have a new run on awl's. Nice brushed surgical stainless steel, so as not to cause undo infection of your "servant".

Don't forget this one:
Exodus 21:7-11: When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may 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. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.


How quaint, this next one:
Leviticus 25:44-46: However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

So, what is wrong with this system other than that you left out other instances of Servant/Slaves? Is it because you personally don't like it?

[Gawen]

This is going to MF&P

[Toob Socks]

So, what is wrong with this system other than that you don't personally like it?

You find nothing wrong with treating people as if they were your property? Wow... :eek:

[dr lazer blast]

Id like to correct you guys on some things. Everything prviously quoted was in the old testament, the new testament sheds a different light on things.

Colossians 4:1

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.


Ephesians 6:5-9

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

[MrFungus420]

It seems like everyone is missing one important part of all of that:

Exodus 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant...

[Gawen]

Id like to correct you guys on some things. Everything prviously quoted was in the old testament, the new testament sheds a different light on things.

Colossians 4:1

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.


Ephesians 6:5-9

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

It sheds no different light than OT scripture. It only adds to the fantasy. You are not correcting us one little bit because the opposite of Ephesians 6:5-9 is the same as OT.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ, otherwise...

Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart, otherwise...

because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free, otherwise...

Remember, Jesus upheld the Law.

[figuer]

How to treat a servant? I should know...my servant adores me. When I moved from my parents house he spent the whole night, drunk, crying below my window because "señorito Jo" (little master Joe) was the best one that treated him in the family, etc. etc.

Servants like being treated as confidants and allies, yet being restricted by firm boundaries....and they like being paid well.

[dr lazer blast]

Id like to correct you guys on some things. Everything prviously quoted was in the old testament, the new testament sheds a different light on things.

Colossians 4:1




Ephesians 6:5-9



It sheds no different light than OT scripture. It only adds to the fantasy. You are not correcting us one little bit because the opposite of Ephesians 6:5-9 is the same as OT.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ, otherwise...

Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart, otherwise...

because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free, otherwise...

Remember, Jesus upheld the Law.

I am correcting you, Its called the new testament for a reason, if the NT and the OT talk about the same subject, one takes the NT writings over the OT writings, just as one takes a current scientific conclusion over an old one.



Jesus upheld the law, but to a certain extent. He corrected, clarified, and shed new light on OT laws.

Like when Jesus told the crowd "He who has no sin throw the first stone" and "it was written love your neighbor hate your enemy, but I tell you to love your enemy as you love yourself" thus clarifying, correcting, and shedding new light upon OT laws and traditions.

So in context with your post, Jesus upheld the law, but upheld it the way it was supposed to be upheld, i.e no stoning, loving your enemy, fairness to slaves from the masters etc. etc.

[Keith&Co.]

Hostage taking anyone? I also have a new run on awl's. Nice brushed surgical stainless steel, so as not to cause undo infection of your "servant". I think that's worse that hostages. Either the dad stays with them or he goes free, up to him. But you get to keep the wife and children, no matter what.

[Sabine Grant]

It sheds no different light than OT scripture. It only adds to the fantasy. You are not correcting us one little bit because the opposite of Ephesians 6:5-9 is the same as OT.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ, otherwise...

Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart, otherwise...

because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free, otherwise...

Remember, Jesus upheld the Law.

I am correcting you, Its called the new testament for a reason, if the NT and the OT talk about the same subject, one takes the NT writings over the OT writings, just as one takes a current scientific conclusion over an old one. Your reason, however, is based on your preferred interpretation of what the New testament meant to convey. To a covenant theology adept, the reason why it is called the New Testament is because Christ incarnates the last and final covenant with believers, one which overrides the previous conditions set by God to experience redemption from sin. Meaning abiding to the law is not what redeems any sinful believer. Introducing salvation by grace.



Jesus upheld the law, but to a certain extent. He corrected, clarified, and shed new light on OT laws. Non. Christ challenged them and demonstrated their irrelevance to the new covenant.

Like when Jesus told the crowd "He who has no sin throw the first stone" and "it was written love your neighbor hate your enemy, but I tell you to love your enemy as you love yourself" thus clarifying, correcting, and shedding new light upon OT laws and traditions.

So in context with your post, Jesus upheld the law, but upheld it the way it was supposed to be upheld, i.e no stoning, loving your enemy, fairness to slaves from the masters etc. etc. Non. OT laws clearly demand abidance to the treatment of slaves and public stoning as a death sentence. What Christ emphasized is how such demands are contradictory to the way human beings should treat each other.

To go back to the OP : what is predominant in our culture is the notion of Human Rights. One where both bodily integrity and exclusive ownership of our bodies are intimately connected. Meaning that any concept of one human being owning another human being is defeated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Further : the slave/master dynamics of the OT reflect the prolongation of a state of poverty of the slave.The master does not at any time equip the slave to become an economically independent individual as labor is exchanged not for an income but food and shelter. As a result such slave was to remain dependent on the master to assume his/her basic living needs.

I can heavily question the alleged ethics of any social system which aggravates the state of economical poverty of other persons no matter how much that system claims to do it for the best interest of those persons.

[Gawen]

I really need not go into this further. Sabine covered it quite nicely...:thumbs:

[dr lazer blast]

Your reason, however, is based on your preferred interpretation of what the New testament meant to convey. To a covenant theology adept, the reason why it is called the New Testament is because Christ incarnates the last and final covenant with believers, one which overrides the previous conditions set by God to experience redemption from sin. Meaning abiding to the law is not what redeems any sinful believer. Introducing salvation by grace.



Matthew 5:17-18
The Fulfillment of the Law
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

You're right, to a point, it's not just about redemption, its also about how you live as well. If you look at scripture you would see that Jesus came to fullfil the law, but not abolish it, thus illuminating my point, that He came to clarify, shed new light, and take things further regarding the OT laws. For example:

Matthew 5:21-22
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment.

Who said do not murder? that was the 6th commandment, the law. What is Jesus doing? he takes it further and clarifies stating that being angry is like murdering in your heart.

Matthew 5:27-28
You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Who said do not commit adultery? that was the law. What is Jesus doing? he takes it further and clarifies that looking at a women lustfully has already commited adultery with her in his heart.



Romans 10:4-5

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."

So its not just about salvation, it is also about living.


Non. Christ challenged them and demonstrated their irrelevance to the new covenant.

You're right, Jesus did do that, it was also pointed out that the 1st covenent was inferior to the 2nd covenant.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%208:6-13;&version=31;

Hebrews 8:6-13
6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

(thats only part of it, quoting the rest would've been too long, which is why I provided the link)




Non. OT laws clearly demand abidance to the treatment of slaves and public stoning as a death sentence. What Christ emphasized is how such demands are contradictory to the way human beings should treat each other.

which basically means not to do it anymore, i.e stop stoning people because it is contradicory to the way human beings should treat each other, unless you think it was stated otherwise. Can you please clarify this statement?


To go back to the OP : what is predominant in our culture is the notion of Human Rights. One where both bodily integrity and exclusive ownership of our bodies are intimately connected. Meaning that any concept of one human being owning another human being is defeated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Further : the slave/master dynamics of the OT reflect the prolongation of a state of poverty of the slave.The master does not at any time equip the slave to become an economically independent individual as labor is exchanged not for an income but food and shelter. As a result such slave was to remain dependent on the master to assume his/her basic living needs.

I can heavily question the alleged ethics of any social system which aggravates the state of economical poverty of other persons no matter how much that system claims to do it for the best interest of those persons.

It is very common that people attack the bible as 'promoting slavery' but the view of slavery back then, was basically an employee/ employer relationship.
As Herbert Lockyer said:

In the ancient world, service and slavery were closely related, so much so that one can scarcely distinguish the one from the other. The original words used for “servants” and “service” carry a variety of meanings between which it is not always easy to determine what is meant (1969, p. 197).

also look at Abraham’s relationship with his slave eliezer. In Genesis 15:2-3, Abraham said he was childless. When he talked to God, he stated that the heir of his wealth was eliezer of damascus. In verse three chapter 15, Abraham described eliezer as “one born in my house.” and in Genesis 24:2, Abraham’s oldest servant (probably eliezer, but its a servent non the less) “ruled over all that he had.” Furthermore if you look at the fact that Abraham armed 318 trained servants to bring back Lot after he had been captured (Genesis 14:14-15). If the slave/owner relationship was anything less than mutually trusting, Abraham most likely would not have intentionally armed his slaves.

Also if you look at Deuteronomy 15:16-17

16 And if it happens that he says to you, ‘I will not go away from you,’ because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, 17 then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your female servant you shall do likewise.

More evidence in In Deuteronomy 23:15-16, where God made it unlawful for runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. as you can see:

You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him.



i

[Riley Stone]

It is very common that people attack the bible as 'promoting slavery' but the view of slavery back then, was basically an employee/ employer relationship.


Employee/Employer Relationship?!

What kind of "employer/employee relationship" includes a clause that at the end of one's "employment," his wife and children will belong to his "employer?"

In Exodus 2, it is stated that the slave's wife and children will belong to the master, as if the wife and children are objects or property.

This IS the very definition of slavery, (see below), and the Bible most certainly does endorse it.

Definition of slavery (according to Merriam Webster): the state of a person who is a chattel of another.

Definition of chattel (according to Merriam Webster): an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property.

Exodus 21:2-6: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.

[Riley Stone]

It is very common that people attack the bible as 'promoting slavery' but the view of slavery back then, was basically an employee/ employer relationship.


Again--employer/employee relationship? I don't think so. Employers do not OWN their employees.

Leviticus 25:44-46: However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Imagine substituting the word "employees" for the word "slave" in this same passage. See how silly this will sound.

Leviticus 25:44-46: However, you may purchase male or female EMPLOYEES from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident EMPLOYEES, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat YOUR EMPLOYEES as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your EMPLOYEES like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Notice the added instruction that the people of Israel were not to be treated in this [cruel] manner. The author of this passage recognized that the sort of treatment he was endorsing for foreigners was not the kind of treatment he would permit for people he considered to be valuable. And it is this very attitude--that some people are less valuable than others--that perpetuated (and perpetuates) the inhumane institution of slavery, along with many other inhumane behaviors and belief systems.

[Sabine Grant]

Your reason, however, is based on your preferred interpretation of what the New testament meant to convey. To a covenant theology adept, the reason why it is called the New Testament is because Christ incarnates the last and final covenant with believers, one which overrides the previous conditions set by God to experience redemption from sin. Meaning abiding to the law is not what redeems any sinful believer. Introducing salvation by grace.





You're right, to a point, it's not just about redemption, its also about how you live as well. If you look at scripture you would see that Jesus came to fullfil the law, but not abolish it, thus illuminating my point, that He came to clarify, shed new light, and take things further regarding the OT laws. For example:

Matthew 5:21-22
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment.

Who said do not murder? that was the 6th commandment, the law. What is Jesus doing? he takes it further and clarifies stating that being angry is like murdering in your heart. Rather than derailing this thread towards a secondary topic of a "clash of personal interpretations" on what Christ's intent was, I would like for you to refocus on two central counter arguments in view of slavery as portrayed to be practiced through the Bible :

-1) I stated that such system prolonged the state of poverty of the slave maintained in economical dependency of his/her owner(master) due to the absence of labor being rewarded by a monetary income.
-2) bodily integrity and the exclusive right of ownership over our own anatomies very well reflected and applied in non exploitative cultures.

I will ask you to provide the rationale behind describing such slavery system as being in the best interest of the slave, keeping in mind that you will need to argue that such system was non exploitative.

The alleged ethics of such system are now under scrutiny. How masters treated their slaves is irrelevant at this point considering the exploitative aspect (predominant) of the relationship between slave and master.


It is very common that people attack the bible as 'promoting slavery' but the view of slavery back then, was basically an employee/ employer relationship.
As Herbert Lockyer said:

In the ancient world, service and slavery were closely related, so much so that one can scarcely distinguish the one from the other. The original words used for “servants” and “service” carry a variety of meanings between which it is not always easy to determine what is meant (1969, p. 197). That view can easily be demonstrated as irrational considering that an employer will reward his/her employee with a monetary income. The employee is then enabled to assume his/her basic living needs without depending on the employer's choice of how to assume them. There is no possible exercise of individual freedom as we promote the notion that our exercise is to be determined by someone else's choice.

also look at Abraham’s relationship with his slave eliezer. In Genesis 15:2-3, Abraham said he was childless. When he talked to God, he stated that the heir of his wealth was eliezer of damascus. In verse three chapter 15, Abraham described eliezer as “one born in my house.” and in Genesis 24:2, Abraham’s oldest servant (probably eliezer, but its a servent non the less) “ruled over all that he had.” Furthermore if you look at the fact that Abraham armed 318 trained servants to bring back Lot after he had been captured (Genesis 14:14-15). If the slave/owner relationship was anything less than mutually trusting, Abraham most likely would not have intentionally armed his slaves. What you portray here as "mutual trust" is defined as an abusive/ co dependent relationship in modern psychology. Slaves were co dependents of their master. They were in a position of inferiority and fully dependent on the master's will to experience survival.

As an aside, quoting Abraham's behavior and human interactions as any positive example needs to be corrected considering this :

-attempted murder on his son.
-committed adultery on his wife.
-abandoned his other biological son, Ishmael, and his mother Haggar. Leaving them to starve and dehydrate in the desert.

Had this man lived in our times and culture, he would be facing charges of attempted murder, child abandonment, abuse, neglect and certainly would not be a reference to an individual who motivated "trust" in any of his relationships.

Also if you look at Deuteronomy 15:16-17

16 And if it happens that he says to you, ‘I will not go away from you,’ because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, 17 then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your female servant you shall do likewise.

More evidence in In Deuteronomy 23:15-16, where God made it unlawful for runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. as you can see:

You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him. You do not seem to realize that the very notion of OWNING another human being is morally reprehensible. Persons who fester that notion that they OWN their child, spouse, friend, relative,employee are in fact abusive personalities who create sets of rules to their advantage which always maintain the other party into a relational co dependency with them. Such co dependents "go along" with those sets of rule without being given the equal and mutual opportunity to state "no way Jose".

[Trout]

This IS the very definition of slavery, (see below), and the Bible most certainly does endorse it.

Makes one wonder if ole Gad has a bunch of slaves running the pearly plantations.

Hey maybe this whole "obedience to his will" crap is just a screening to weed out the most passive among us so they can get transferred to the holy cotton fields.

Wouldn't that be a freakin shocker. Love to see the looks on a few faces then