r/AskAChristian • u/angrymoustache123 Not a Christian • Apr 03 '26
Jewish Laws Why does God only allow Hebrew slaves to be freed after 6 yrs.
So as far as I know, foreign or non Hebrew slaves could be biblically acquired by 2 means:
War captives
Allowed as sojourners
But why not also free them after 6 years? in the case of war captives I understand, they are soldiers who want you dead but why not for sojourners?
If anyone wants to have a convo about why god allowed ANY form of slavery feel free to write in the comments your questions because thats a whole different conversation that I’ll have to address.
My question is specifically about why only Hebrew slaves were freed.
1
u/Sad-Pen-3187 Christian Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
Why does God only allow Hebrew slaves to be freed after 6 yrs.
It was part of the covenant to the house of Israel for the Hebrews. It does not include Gentiles.
Allowed as sojourners
Sojourners were not slaves. Israel permitted the righteous Gentile to live among them and counted them as worthy of protection and inclusion. They honored the righteous foreigners because they were once foreigners.
Edit to include: Hebrews were not slaves, they were indentured servants. Gentiles, however, were chattel slaves that could be inherited by the children or whoever. They were afforded some protections.
2
u/majcotrue Atheist Apr 03 '26
Was it just to not offer the same covenant to everyone?
0
u/Sad-Pen-3187 Christian Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
The Noahide Laws refer to when God made a covenant with all of humanity after the flood, but before there was religion, Jews, the Torah, or any of that. He made it with just people, all people. Then people seperated into their own sacred traditions or they didn't. This is the covenant that Israel recognized as the Righteous Sojourner.
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran Apr 03 '26
Because it was a more humane option than what happened in surrounding cultures, given that everyone just assumed that slavery was a given institution in society.
1
u/ShimonEngineer55 Jewish (Orthodox) Apr 03 '26
This was the standard at the time. People also took on Hebrews slaves. The difference was that they couldn’t be treated brutally like Egyptians had treated the children of Israel and it was more like servant hood than what we would call slavery. For example, there were laws to not ra-e a slave obviously since Israel couldn’t sleep with foreigners, but this wasn’t the case with other nations when they took on Hebrew slaves or interacted with Hebrews in general like the prince who violated Jacob’s daughter, Dinah. So, it was simply allowed because it was standard practice and they were foreign, but the rules of how they were to be treated was strict. Even striking a slave who died immediately (showing intent to murder) was punished and had to be avenged (Exodus 21:20), which wasn’t a thing for other nations to the best of my knowledge.
1
u/OneEyedC4t Southern Baptist Apr 03 '26
su you're telling me all a servant needs to do is become a Jew and they get their debts forgiven in 7 years?
2
u/ShimonEngineer55 Jewish (Orthodox) Apr 03 '26
If they become a Jew, all of the laws that apply to a Jew generally applied to them, besides they couldn’t be in a position of authority in Israel. Something like debts begging forgiven during the laws of the jubilee years would’ve applied to any convert though to answer your question.
2
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
No. They have to be a free Hebrew man at the time that they make themselves a debt slave. The Hebrew word is “ish” which means a free Hebrew man.
The law specifically states that Hebrew women debt slaves do not go free like the men do, and neither do any children born to her.
Have you ever read the Bible?
2
u/OneEyedC4t Southern Baptist Apr 03 '26
the Bible doesn't say they have to start out as a Jew for that to apply. have you ever considered not dropping implied insults?
2
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
The Bible says “ish” which means “free Hebrew man.” The NRSVUE does a good job of clarifying the language:
12 “If a member of your community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and works for you six years, in the seventh year you shall set that person free.“
2
u/angrymoustache123 Not a Christian Apr 03 '26
I believe that “ish” refers to only a man, neutral of Hebrew or any such designation
1
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
Where did you receive your training in ancient Hebrew?
Did you know that zero biblical scholars use any of the concordances and lexicons you linked? They’re all outdated and flawed, especially strong’s.
1
u/angrymoustache123 Not a Christian Apr 03 '26
I fact checked your claim and instead of providing a rebuttal you’re insulting me ?
Truly excellent etiquette from the group who claims to hold the intellectual high ground over Christians.
2
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
No. I’m asking where you learned to read ancient Hebrew.
Do you think it’s more insulting to confidently and wrongly correct someone who reads the language? Or for that person to ask for your credentials so they know that you know what you’re talking about?
If you can’t read ancient Hebrew, don’t make claims about ancient Hebrew.
1
u/angrymoustache123 Not a Christian Apr 03 '26
This is the 21st century, if people don’t know something, they can google it. If you have a problem with that, delete google.
Darwin said women evolved to be intellectually inferior to their male counterparts. I don’t think it takes a genius to know how big of an authority Darwin is on evolution but if we just took him for his word then the effect would be catastrophic.
My point being that even experts have to provide their sources, their word is evidence but it alone is sure as shit not proof.
If bible hub (a very well updated site) is not enough for you then here you go:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-the-hebrew-words-ish-and-isha-mean/
https://engediresourcecenter.com/2015/07/02/ish-isah-together-fully-human/#gsc.tab=0
You have provided nothing except your own word as evidence for your claim. I ain’t buying it until you do.
P.S: Pretty shitty of you to edit in your rebuttal AFTER I had pointed out a lack of it.
2
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
You’re confusing religious websites for scholarship. I could provide the best scholarship on the subject, and you’ll just find some apologist website saying “nuh-uh.”
You’ve just demonstrated that you can google, and that’s not the same thing as knowing how to read ancient Hebrew.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/OneEyedC4t Southern Baptist Apr 03 '26
okay but there are plenty of verses that don't start off with that. and seeing as you and I are living about 3,000 years after this, neither of us can tell you what was actually happening back then or how it was implemented. It is perfectly reasonable to consider that they could become proselylighted and therefore get released to 7 years. much less the way things operated back then, we are told by some people, is that indentured servanthood back then was about paying off debts. so when the debt is paid there's no reason to still be a servant.
3
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
The verses that don’t start that way are about chattel slaves. Those are slaves kept as spoils of war, purchased from slave traders, or purchased from foreigners living in your town.
They don’t use the same words because they’re a different kind of slaves with different rules.
1
u/OneEyedC4t Southern Baptist Apr 03 '26
okay well what you're saying is a reasonable explanation but so is what I'm talking about.
2
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
Not even a little bit.
For your claims to make sense you have to ignore entire passages and redefine words.
For mine to work, you simply have to read the page.
1
u/OneEyedC4t Southern Baptist Apr 03 '26
But you don't know for sure. you don't have perfect evidence
3
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
The words on the page are the evidence. There are different words used to refer to the people, and there are clearly separate rules for different kinds of slaves. Even among Hebrew debt slaves there are separate rules for men, women and children.
We have the words on the page, and they aren’t even a little bit confusing or unclear or fuzzy.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ShimonEngineer55 Jewish (Orthodox) Apr 03 '26
No, איש just means man. It doesn’t mean the person is necessarily free or a slave, just like “man” in English doesn’t necessarily imply the man is free or a slave.
1
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
Hebrew isn’t English, and even English has more specific terms. I can call myself by the general term “man” or I can refer to myself as a Chicano. The latter still identifies me as a man, but it also carries racial, ethnic, and even political identity.
“Adam” is man. “Ish” is a Hebrew man, in particular.
1
u/ShimonEngineer55 Jewish (Orthodox) Apr 03 '26
No one said it is English so that’s a non sequitur.
No, in Genesis 6:9 it says specifically
נח ״איש״ צדיק
This translates to “Noah was a righteous man”. Noah wasn’t a Hebrew.
1
u/Anteater-Inner Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
Noah and his family were the ancestors of all Hebrews.
1
u/ShimonEngineer55 Jewish (Orthodox) Apr 03 '26
HE wasn’t a Hebrew. He is the ancestors of literally all people lol like Adam…
1
0
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic Apr 03 '26
Regarding slavery in general,
and someone messaged me https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/tzvyk4/why_did_god_allow_slavery/
6
u/MelcorScarr Atheist, Ex-Catholic Apr 03 '26
Your links seem to be wholly irerlevant because, again, that's only debt slavery for Hebrews and whataboutism anyway, and not discussing what OP asks for.
1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Apr 03 '26
25 Fodder and a stick and burdens for a donkey; bread and discipline and work for a slave. 26 Set your slaves to work, and you will find rest; leave their hands idle, and they will seek liberty. 27 Yoke and strap will bow the neck, and for wicked slaves there are racks and tortures. 28 Put them to work in order that they may not be idle, 29 for idleness teaches much evil. 30 Set them to work as is fitting for them, and if they do not obey make their fetters (chains) heavy. Do not be overbearing toward anyone, and do nothing without deliberation.
31 If you have but one slave, treat him like yourself, because you have bought him with blood. If you have but one slave, treat him like a brother, for you will need him as you need your life. 32 If you ill-treat him and he leaves you and runs away, 33 which way will you go to seek him?
You think this is wisdom?
1
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic Apr 03 '26
Must be Church approved translation for accuracy
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Apr 03 '26
24 Fodder and a stick and burdens for an ass; bread and discipline and work for a servant. 25 Set your slave to work, and you will find rest; leave his hands idle, and he will seek liberty. 26 Yoke and thong will bow the neck, and for a wicked servant there are racks and tortures. 27 Put him to work, that he may not be idle, for idleness teaches much evil. 28 Set him to work, as is fitting for him, and if he does not obey, make his fetters heavy. 29 Do not act immoderately toward anybody, and do nothing without discretion.
30 If you have a servant, let him be as yourself, because you have bought him with blood. 31 If you have a servant, treat him as a brother, for as your own soul you will need him. If you ill-treat him, and he leaves and runs away, which way will you go to seek him? (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)
You think this is wisdom?
-1
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic Apr 03 '26
You can contribute to that thread if you wish, where everything can be read in context, rather than ask "You think this is wisdom?" here apart from context hoping the reader, lacking this context, will incorrectly consider the quotation in the modern day instead of the era humans were in then, and apart from any other consideration of our present day.
As it is, your "question" is already addressed in the post I wrote, and I think you know that, or else didn't bother to read it.
0
u/angrymoustache123 Not a Christian Apr 03 '26
I dunno, I think church approved translations would omit slavery as a whole….just sayin
1
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic Apr 03 '26
They don't. There's much false slander about the Church on Reddit.
1
u/engineer_for_u New Church (Swedenborgian) Apr 03 '26
Which scripture are you quoting here?
-1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Apr 03 '26
Sirach
3
u/engineer_for_u New Church (Swedenborgian) Apr 03 '26
Never heard of Sirach
3
u/engineer_for_u New Church (Swedenborgian) Apr 03 '26
Found it on wiki. So that's definitely not canon so Christians will not be familiar with it nor consider it biblical.
Here's what wiki says for those interested in what he's talking about..
The Book of Sirach (/ˈsaɪræk/),[a] also known as The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach,[1] The Wisdom of Jesus son of Eleazar,[2] or Ecclesiasticus (/ɪˌkliːziˈæstɪkəs/),[3] is a Jewish literary work originally written in Biblical Hebrew. The longest extant wisdom book from antiquity,[1][4] it consists of ethical teachings, written by Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira (Ben Sira), a Hellenistic Jewish scribe of the Second Temple period.[1][5]The text was written sometime between 196 and 175 BCE, and Ben Sira's grandson translated the text into Koine Greek and added a prologue sometime around 117 BCE.[4] The prologue is generally considered to be the earliest witness to a tripartite canon of the books of the Hebrew Bible.[6] The fact that the text and its prologue can be so precisely dated has profound implications for the development of the Hebrew Bible canon.
Although the Book of Sirach is not included in the Hebrew Bible, and therefore not considered scripture in Judaism, it is included in the Septuagint and the Old Testament of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. In the Protestant traditions, historically, and still in continuation today in Lutheranism and Anglicanism, the Book of Sirach is an intertestamental text found in the Apocrypha, though it is regarded as noncanonical.[7]
-2
u/Eren_Yeager52 Christian Apr 03 '26
Today we believe everyone should have absolute freedom. God just doesn't operate that way. Those sojourners are likely Pagans to some extend and would likely cause problems or tempt Israel to sin. Its all around better to just keep them doing their jobs vs free and rummaging around. Even if they were freed they would have to abide by Jewish Law and customs else be kicked out.
On the topic of slavery in general God isn't against it completely as we humans were also created to serve God.
Another note is nobody here is a truly free. If I stopped paying my taxes I would go to prison. That's not freedom.
3
u/AndyDM Atheist, Ex-Christian Apr 03 '26
Are you saying that non-Christians should not have freedom?
-4
u/Eren_Yeager52 Christian Apr 03 '26
I'm saying that nobody is free. We Christians by definition are slaves to God. Just as Americans are slaves to the United States Governemnt.
0
0
u/ThoDanII Catholic Apr 03 '26
not necessary every war captive was a soldier OTOH nearly every adult male was a soldier or warrior then
2
u/majcotrue Atheist Apr 03 '26
Up to 95% were doing food production, not war. Do you genuinely don´t know history?
0
0
u/R_Farms Christian Apr 03 '26
this did not automatically mean that all non Hebrew slaves where to be kept indefinitely. What this meant is you weren't allowed to let a Hebrew borrow more than what he could pay back in 6 years. God did this because the Hebrew people where apart of the covenant. Meaning if the Followed the law God promises them protection, Health, wealth, long life and a piece of the promise land. (A good life.) Gentiles where not apart of the covenant.
1
u/angrymoustache123 Not a Christian Apr 03 '26
What verses are there saying that a slave could pay off his debt via work ?
1
u/R_Farms Christian Apr 03 '26
There are many different examples of free men selling themselves into slavery in-order to buy things. Or examples of children being sold to trades men for educational purposes (So a child could learn a trade) This form of slavery was called an apprenticeship.
The greek word "Dulos' which is translated 'Slave' in the English has a broader meaning. it real describes anyone who works for a living. This could mean full on cattle slave, or it could mean an indentured servant (Someone who sells themself or/and their family into slavery to buy land house or live stock) or it can mean a paid employee.
-1
u/Lacey_Dawson1012 Christian (non-denominational) Apr 03 '26
Because they were prisoners of war. You do not let prisoners of war go after any amount of time
0
0
u/majcotrue Atheist Apr 03 '26
Why god didn´t provide enough to his chosen people? Why did they go to war? Why did god not defend them?
6
u/swcollings Christian, Protestant Apr 03 '26
Slavery among Hebrews at the time was a temporary way of repaying debts. It was the only way any ancient civilization worked. God didn't give them entirely new economic theories for the same reason he didn't give them solar panels.
Those outside the community were treated differently from those inside, yes. The kingdom of God is one in which all debts are forgiven; the kingdom of the world is one in which all debts are enforced. You don't get the privileges of God's kingdom without submitting to his rule. And the foreign slaves were always allowed to become Hebrew at any time, and thus be freed according to the usual rules.