Old Testament and the beating of slaves

[Haruko]

I remember reading once before that the Bible, specifically the OT, states that you may beat a slave so severely that he dies, so long as the death does not occur on the same day. Does it even state that? I find instead Exodus 21:20-21 which seems to indicate that you can beat a slave so severely that he is disabled, but he must be able to get up after the passing of no more than two days:

King James Version:

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].

New International Version:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

[Bounty]

Biblegateway spits out the same passage when searching for "slave" and "beat". I think that's the one the original statement referred to - the KJV quote is vague enough to be interpreted like that.

[chitoryu12]

So the Bible essentially says that you can beat a slave so severely that he dies a slow, painful death for a day or two, and all is fine, whereas simply smashing his brains out and letting him die quickly is bad. Greeeeeat.

[Singular Intellect]

So the Bible essentially says that you can beat a slave so severely that he dies a slow, painful death for a day or two, and all is fine, whereas simply smashing his brains out and letting him die quickly is bad. Greeeeeat.

The sad part is that the vast majority of christians are ignorant of such biblical tales and teachings of 'moral' behavior. But they still hold up their bibles and claim them sources of morality.

And then they wonder why we call them ignorant and stupid fucks.

[TithonusSyndrome]

So the Bible essentially says that you can beat a slave so severely that he dies a slow, painful death for a day or two, and all is fine, whereas simply smashing his brains out and letting him die quickly is bad. Greeeeeat.

The sad part is that the vast majority of christians are ignorant of such biblical tales and teachings of 'moral' behavior. But they still hold up their bibles and claim them sources of morality.

And then they wonder why we call them ignorant and stupid fucks.

Or some of them play the New Testament card and expect everyone to simply forget about the Old Testament altogether.

[Superman]

There was a time when Christians used these verses to justify slavery.

[Wicked Pilot]

Or some of them play the New Testament card and expect everyone to simply forget about the Old Testament altogether.

You don't need no stinkin' Old Testimate to justify slavery.


Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
-Ephesians 6:5

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God
-Colossians 3:22

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
-Timothy 6:1

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again
-Titus 2:9

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
-1 Peter 2:18


I'm sure there's more, but reading Bible versus makes my brain hurt, so that's it for now.

[JLTucker]

Or some of them play the New Testament card and expect everyone to simply forget about the Old Testament altogether.

Which is completely stupid because there are passages in the New Testament that say not to ignore the Old Testament. My parents use that excuse. When I show them the passages that say not to ignore the Old Testament, they brush them off.

[Feil]

The King James Version is significantly less accurate to the original than the NIV is. Lacking a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew, I'd say you're better off accepting the NIV's rendition and assuming that the KJV is in error.

[General Zod]

The King James Version is significantly less accurate to the original than the NIV is. Lacking a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew, I'd say you're better off accepting the NIV's rendition and assuming that the KJV is in error.

If you lack a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew then how do you know which one is less accurate

[Duckie]

The King James Version is significantly less accurate to the original than the NIV is. Lacking a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew, I'd say you're better off accepting the NIV's rendition and assuming that the KJV is in error.

If you lack a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew then how do you know which one is less accurate

The KJV's English is stilted and weird compared to the NIV which makes it prone to miscommunication like this, and also was created by King James, who had many passages revised or 'fixed' according to his wishes.

[Haruko]

Which is completely stupid because there are passages in the New Testament that say not to ignore the Old Testament.

Would you happen to know of any off-hand?

[Gandalf]

Which is completely stupid because there are passages in the New Testament that say not to ignore the Old Testament.

Would you happen to know of any off-hand?

SAB has you somewhat covered.

[Gil Hamilton]

Which is completely stupid because there are passages in the New Testament that say not to ignore the Old Testament. My parents use that excuse. When I show them the passages that say not to ignore the Old Testament, they brush them off.

Besides, it's doesn't matter. Every single one of those slavery quotes from the Bible above are New Testament. They're all from various books of Paul.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Ah, but this would just lead to a debate about what type of slavery it really means- chattel slavery, indentured servitude, or something in between.

[Haruko]

Or some of them play the New Testament card and expect everyone to simply forget about the Old Testament altogether.

You don't need no stinkin' Old Testimate to justify slavery.


Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
-Ephesians 6:5

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God
-Colossians 3:22

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
-Timothy 6:1

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again
-Titus 2:9

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
-1 Peter 2:18


I'm sure there's more, but reading Bible versus makes my brain hurt, so that's it for now.

Are any of those Jesus personally saying that to the people when he was said to be walking the Earth? A member at my forum just asked: "(Can someone let me know the passage where Jesus supposedly allows the beating of slaves, I can't find it)" Otherwise, do any of you know of passages with Jesus personally condoning slavery or allowing the beating of slaves?

[Haruko]

A fellow admin of my forum shoots that down well when he says:

Sorry, slick, but the "Jesus wasn't the one who said that!" argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Plenty of teachings are derived from the Old Testament (otherwise, it wouldn't be included in the book at all), including those about God's distaste for homosexuality. I know that you like to pretend there are worthless distinctions that make the advocation of slavery in that book okay, but we've established in the past that this is because you are morally bankrupt.

However, I'd still be interested to know if Jesus is said in the Bible to personally condone slavery or acknowledge that it should be allowed.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I'm fairly sure that along with homosexuality, it's one of the things that Jesus never mentioned.

[Darth Wong]

I'm fairly sure that along with homosexuality, it's one of the things that Jesus never mentioned.

Along with 90% of Christian ideology, which comes from Paul. That doesn't really get a Christian off the hook unless he belongs to the very small subset of Christians that rejects all of the Pauline epistles.

[Rye]

However, I'd still be interested to know if Jesus is said in the Bible to personally condone slavery or acknowledge that it should be allowed.

Luke 12:42-48? Surely if he'd wanted it abolished, he would've said so there? It looks like Luke has Jesus saying "yeah, I'm going to come back, honest, but that doesn't mean you should rebel if you're a slave, you'll get rightfully beaten if you do, because I might not be coming back just yet."

[Wicked Pilot]

Are any of those Jesus personally saying that to the people when he was said to be walking the Earth? A member at my forum just asked: "(Can someone let me know the passage where Jesus supposedly allows the beating of slaves, I can't find it)" Otherwise, do any of you know of passages with Jesus personally condoning slavery or allowing the beating of slaves?

If Jesus was the end all to be all as far as morality and how to live one's life is concerned then I dare them to find a passage where he disapproves. Moreover, if Paul and and Peter where wrong in their writing, then that is a serious theological rift that needs to be settled with the billion other Christians in the world before it's presented as an apologetic.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Are any of those Jesus personally saying that to the people when he was said to be walking the Earth? A member at my forum just asked: "(Can someone let me know the passage where Jesus supposedly allows the beating of slaves, I can't find it)" Otherwise, do any of you know of passages with Jesus personally condoning slavery or allowing the beating of slaves?

If Jesus was the end all to be all as far as morality and how to live one's life is concerned then I dare them to find a passage where he disapproves. Moreover, if Paul and and Peter where wrong in their writing, then that is a serious theological rift that needs to be settled with the billion other Christians in the world before it's presented as an apologetic.

I guess Jesus was too busy drowning hogs and cursing trees to be reached for comment. Fortunately for him, he appears to have enjoyed great PR work.

[Kihmbar]

So the Bible essentially says that you can beat a slave so severely that he dies a slow, painful death for a day or two, and all is fine, whereas simply smashing his brains out and letting him die quickly is bad. Greeeeeat.

I think you may have read the verse too quickly. I have not looked at the original Hebrew text for Exodus 21:20-21, but based on English translations (NIV, RSV) it is saying:
If you beat a slave to the point of death you must be punished (by death, Exodus 21:12) - being beaten to death is indicated by whether or not the slave gets up after a couple of days. After a couple of days, if the slave is still alive (gets up) then the owner is not to be punished. After a couple of days, if the slave is dead (doesn't get up) then the owner is to be punished.

This is consistent with Haruko's interpretation in the OP. I will look it up tonight when I can get to my references with the original Hebrew/Greek. However, please advise if my interpretation is in error.

Moreover, if Paul and and Peter where wrong in their writing, then that is a serious theological rift that needs to be settled with the billion other Christians in the world before it's presented as an apologetic.

I have seen modern writings which strongly imply (and some outright say) that Paul didn't know what he was talking about. Obviously they are not very prominent in the Christian bookstores (but to be honest, the arguments they make are weak). These publications are usually Christians who take exception to a particular aspect of Christianity and are trying to justify their exception. I find this a bit dishonest (taking what you like from a religion, but not what you don't like).

Answering the OP - I will search through my references tonight to see if there is scripture in the OT saying you can beat a slave to death as long as the death doesn't occur in the same day. I'll get back with my findings at a later date.

[Darth Wong]

I have seen modern writings which strongly imply (and some outright say) that Paul didn't know what he was talking about. Obviously they are not very prominent in the Christian bookstores (but to be honest, the arguments they make are weak).

It seems to me that a Christian could easily make a strong argument for this case, since Paul himself never even claims to have met Jesus in person. His entire body of work can be easily considered secondhand opinion and hearsay, even if one accepts the story of Jesus' divinity.

[Kihmbar]

I have seen modern writings which strongly imply (and some outright say) that Paul didn't know what he was talking about. Obviously they are not very prominent in the Christian bookstores (but to be honest, the arguments they make are weak).

It seems to me that a Christian could easily make a strong argument for this case, since Paul himself never even claims to have met Jesus in person. His entire body of work can be easily considered secondhand opinion and hearsay, even if one accepts the story of Jesus' divinity.

I think that would be a good argument.

However, the works I have read have placed the emphasis on semantics, Paul's limited knowledge of the world and Paul's inability to understand daily life. For a man as well educated and well traveled as Paul, I find these arguments weak.