“ Without kidnapping, selling, and possessing people, slavery cannot exist.” This, along with your reply to an earlier comment of mine, is indicative of a definition of slavery not in line with common or even biblical use. For example, when Egypt enslaved the Israelites, did it kidnap them? No. They initially came and settled in Goshen. When they left, they left from Goshen. They were enslaved and stayed in the place where they were already living.
Likewise, one could say that the Nazis enslaved prisoners that they took and kept in concentration camps. But nobody was selling these people to the Nazis. Similarly, the Egyptian authority imposed slavery on the Israelites, but did not buy them from anyone. The absence of kidnapping and commercialization does not slavery unmake.
“ Under God’s law, anyone who sells people for money is put to death.
Under God’s law, anyone who possesses people as property is put to death.” The referenced verse refers only to the selling and possession of the aforementioned kidnapping victim, not about someone who wasn’t abducted. There’s also some disagreement on how to translate it, with the ESV, Brenton, and one translation from Syriac Aramaic seemingly suggesting that the penalty also applies to any new person who comes into possession of the kidnapping victim (and are the only English translations on BibleHub with such an implication), while most others say it is just about the original kidnapper and whether they sold off or still have their victim.
You said: "“Without kidnapping, selling, and possessing people, slavery cannot exist.” This, along with your reply to an earlier comment of mine, is indicative of a definition of slavery not in line with common or even biblical use."
It is, in fact.
The problem isn't with the verse.
The problem is that our modern usage limits "kidnapping" to something the Bible does not.
This is why I use Joseph's example, above. By modern standards, Joseph wasn't kidnapped. His brothers threw him in a hole, then sold him as a slave. We wouldn't use the word "kidnap" to describe that in modern terminology.
Yet it indicates the key moment necessary for slavery: the moment freedom is lost.
Joseph was "kidnapped" as soon as they stole him away from his freedom. That's what allowed them to sell him as a slave.
This moment is necessary for slavery to exist. Without it, slavery cannot exist.
You said: "For example, when Egypt enslaved the Israelites, did it kidnap them? No. They initially came and settled in Goshen. When they left, they left from Goshen. They were enslaved and stayed in the place where they were already living."
Yes, Egypt certainly kidnapped them, in the sense that Joseph uses the word.
Israel moved to Egypt as free people. For generations, they were free.
And then what happened? Egypt stole their freedom away from them.
Egypt made them slaves.
Some of them continued to live in their same cities, but others were sent wherever Egypt wanted to do whatever Egypt wanted.
Israel wasn't free to leave. They weren't choosing to stay in Goshen. Egypt wouldn't let them leave, and would have killed them if they tried. Egypt still did try to kill them for leaving, even after the plagues.
You said: "Likewise, one could say that the Nazis enslaved prisoners that they took and kept in concentration camps. But nobody was selling these people to the Nazis. Similarly, the Egyptian authority imposed slavery on the Israelites, but did not buy them from anyone. The absence of kidnapping and commercialization does not slavery unmake."
I don't say that selling someone is necessary for slavery.
Kidnapping is.
The Nazis certainly kidnapped every Jewish person who was in the concentration camps. They stole them away from their freedom. They were slaves in those camps. Many were forced to do slave labor as long as they were alive.
Even if we don't use the word "slavery" to describe the concentration camps, it fits. The Nazis kidnapped the Jews, stealing them away from their freedom. They possessed them as property. They didn't view them as humans with equal rights. They viewed them as lesser, as property, to be used or disposed of at whim.
You said: "“ Under God’s law, anyone who sells people for money is put to death." Under God’s law, anyone who possesses people as property is put to death.” The referenced verse refers only to the selling and possession of the aforementioned kidnapping victim, not about someone who wasn’t abducted."
It includes all three.
The death sentence isn't only to the one who steals someone away from their freedom.
It's also for whoever is found in possession of them, even if that's not the original kidnapper.
The person who stole them and the person who possesses them both merit the death penalty. Selling someone as property requires you to be in at least one of those positions.
You said: "There’s also some disagreement on how to translate it, with the ESV, Brenton, and one translation from Syriac Aramaic seemingly suggesting that the penalty also applies to any new person who comes into possession of the kidnapping victim (and are the only English translations on BibleHub with such an implication), while most others say it is just about the original kidnapper and whether they sold off or still have their victim."
The key is the word "whoever." This is widely addressed. The verse is only eight words in Hebrew. Its point isn't to isolate only the kidnapper, but to give the death penalty to anyone who participates in these activities.
Kyle, this series of posts is brilliant. It’s wonderful to see that the Bible already had forbidden slavery thousands of years before the modern abolitionist movement.
“ Without kidnapping, selling, and possessing people, slavery cannot exist.” This, along with your reply to an earlier comment of mine, is indicative of a definition of slavery not in line with common or even biblical use. For example, when Egypt enslaved the Israelites, did it kidnap them? No. They initially came and settled in Goshen. When they left, they left from Goshen. They were enslaved and stayed in the place where they were already living.
Likewise, one could say that the Nazis enslaved prisoners that they took and kept in concentration camps. But nobody was selling these people to the Nazis. Similarly, the Egyptian authority imposed slavery on the Israelites, but did not buy them from anyone. The absence of kidnapping and commercialization does not slavery unmake.
“ Under God’s law, anyone who sells people for money is put to death.
Under God’s law, anyone who possesses people as property is put to death.” The referenced verse refers only to the selling and possession of the aforementioned kidnapping victim, not about someone who wasn’t abducted. There’s also some disagreement on how to translate it, with the ESV, Brenton, and one translation from Syriac Aramaic seemingly suggesting that the penalty also applies to any new person who comes into possession of the kidnapping victim (and are the only English translations on BibleHub with such an implication), while most others say it is just about the original kidnapper and whether they sold off or still have their victim.
Hello Coury,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You said: "“Without kidnapping, selling, and possessing people, slavery cannot exist.” This, along with your reply to an earlier comment of mine, is indicative of a definition of slavery not in line with common or even biblical use."
It is, in fact.
The problem isn't with the verse.
The problem is that our modern usage limits "kidnapping" to something the Bible does not.
This is why I use Joseph's example, above. By modern standards, Joseph wasn't kidnapped. His brothers threw him in a hole, then sold him as a slave. We wouldn't use the word "kidnap" to describe that in modern terminology.
Yet it indicates the key moment necessary for slavery: the moment freedom is lost.
Joseph was "kidnapped" as soon as they stole him away from his freedom. That's what allowed them to sell him as a slave.
This moment is necessary for slavery to exist. Without it, slavery cannot exist.
You said: "For example, when Egypt enslaved the Israelites, did it kidnap them? No. They initially came and settled in Goshen. When they left, they left from Goshen. They were enslaved and stayed in the place where they were already living."
Yes, Egypt certainly kidnapped them, in the sense that Joseph uses the word.
Israel moved to Egypt as free people. For generations, they were free.
And then what happened? Egypt stole their freedom away from them.
Egypt made them slaves.
Some of them continued to live in their same cities, but others were sent wherever Egypt wanted to do whatever Egypt wanted.
Israel wasn't free to leave. They weren't choosing to stay in Goshen. Egypt wouldn't let them leave, and would have killed them if they tried. Egypt still did try to kill them for leaving, even after the plagues.
You said: "Likewise, one could say that the Nazis enslaved prisoners that they took and kept in concentration camps. But nobody was selling these people to the Nazis. Similarly, the Egyptian authority imposed slavery on the Israelites, but did not buy them from anyone. The absence of kidnapping and commercialization does not slavery unmake."
I don't say that selling someone is necessary for slavery.
Kidnapping is.
The Nazis certainly kidnapped every Jewish person who was in the concentration camps. They stole them away from their freedom. They were slaves in those camps. Many were forced to do slave labor as long as they were alive.
Even if we don't use the word "slavery" to describe the concentration camps, it fits. The Nazis kidnapped the Jews, stealing them away from their freedom. They possessed them as property. They didn't view them as humans with equal rights. They viewed them as lesser, as property, to be used or disposed of at whim.
You said: "“ Under God’s law, anyone who sells people for money is put to death." Under God’s law, anyone who possesses people as property is put to death.” The referenced verse refers only to the selling and possession of the aforementioned kidnapping victim, not about someone who wasn’t abducted."
It includes all three.
The death sentence isn't only to the one who steals someone away from their freedom.
It's also for whoever is found in possession of them, even if that's not the original kidnapper.
The person who stole them and the person who possesses them both merit the death penalty. Selling someone as property requires you to be in at least one of those positions.
You said: "There’s also some disagreement on how to translate it, with the ESV, Brenton, and one translation from Syriac Aramaic seemingly suggesting that the penalty also applies to any new person who comes into possession of the kidnapping victim (and are the only English translations on BibleHub with such an implication), while most others say it is just about the original kidnapper and whether they sold off or still have their victim."
The key is the word "whoever." This is widely addressed. The verse is only eight words in Hebrew. Its point isn't to isolate only the kidnapper, but to give the death penalty to anyone who participates in these activities.
Kyle, this series of posts is brilliant. It’s wonderful to see that the Bible already had forbidden slavery thousands of years before the modern abolitionist movement.