Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Leviticus 25:44 '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. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Leviticus 25:44 '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. |
Subject: Does God approve of slavery? |
Bible Note: EdB, Let me first make a plea for being given some benefit of the doubt. I do not advocate beating slaves to death, starving them, or any crazy cruelty. But I am wondering how tempered your statements have been by scripture. The two big instances that make me wonder are: 1. You state that seperating wife and children would be one aspect of slavery which God would not condone. Indeed the very idea that God would condone it would seriously offend you. However, have you considered this passage? Exo 21:1-4 And these are the judgments which thou dost set before them: When thou buyest a Hebrew servant--six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought; if by himself he cometh in, by himself he goeth out; if he is owner of a wife, then his wife hath gone out with him; if his lord give to him a wife, and she hath borne to him sons or daughters--the wife and her children are her lord's, and he goeth out by himself. How does this fit with your thoughts? 2. I'm by no means even competent in Hebrew. But I do know the word you are speaking of in Ex 21:20 and you are quite correct that it is most natural the word for "silver." However, does this change the idea so much? Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Yet even with the word being translated "silver" is this not still at least slightly along that idea? If not how do you understand it? Let me post it again and substitute the word silver. Ex 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 silver. Does this really change basic idea of the two verses? Now, don't think that by this I mean all other nasty things that came with American slavery. All I'm saying is that your statements do not look like they have been tempered by scripture. If it matters, one way we might resolve some of the tension is to suggest there is not the connection between the idea of a slave being property or a possession with all these other things. I don't think I'm being unfair in bringing up scriptures like these. And again, please be gracious enough to not assume that I embrace every vile thing that has come with historical slavery simply because I post these verses. They are relevant. I ought not have to apologize for bringing up scripture. In Chris, Beja |