-->
@RoderickSpode
I am having difficulty understanding your confusion. Do you believe foreign slaves and Israelite servants operated under the same rules? I mean, the passage alludes to different rules for each. The last line draws to mind the jubilee and the option for redemption - neither of which would be available to permanent slaves. This alone is different (and worse) treatment than native slaves. Having your liberty amputated is a fairly significant mistreatment!II think that's like asking if I, an American citizen operate under the same rules as an immigrant not yet naturalized? We're under the same laws, but different rules may apply since the immigrant is not yet a citizen.
It is a matter of laws which lay out exploitation of non-citizens. It is not at all like you suggest.
Okay, I just looked at the link. So can you please explain to me why my statement was out of context?
It has been explained in post #19 of this thread. Let me know what isn't clear:
"As for Exodus 12:49, it refers to passover restriction[s]. Including the passage before verse 49 provides all the context that could possibly be needed to understand it properly. I've bolded the law verse 49 references [which is not all law]."48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you."
In short, exodus 12:49 was never meant to broadly suggest mosaic law applies to foreign slaves.
"In contrast to the laws of other ancient Near Eastern nations,slaves who flee their owners and come to Israel are not to be returned to their masters, nor are they to be oppressed, but they are to be allowed to live wherever they please (Deut 23:15-16).So basically I'm just inquiring as to whether or not that's true. Is that your stance on that verse?
Absolutely, I agree - slaves fleeing from foreign owners/nations were not to be returned to their owners. This does not mean foreign slaves fleeing Hebrew owners were not to be returned or that slaves in general were not to be oppressed. Are we in agreement?