God and Slavery
Many years ago, I read one of the most transformative books on the Bible that it led me to take some extensive notes as a tool to answer one of the harder questions raised by skeptics. That of God's morality in the Old Testament. It usually surrounded the issue of slavery, but not always.
The book is entitled Is God A Moral Monster and is authored by Paul Copan. Seriously, I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
Below are the notes i took, including references and direct responses to the skeptic who first asked me about this, and to whom I was responding at the time.
=========================================
INITIAL THOUGHTS ON THE TOPIC OF SLAVERY:
=========================================
Here, I'm going to offer some general points that are relevant to to this topic. These will provide some of the foundation for the discussions below. This information is not intended to be comprehensive, but is intended to set the framework for our discussion. Because there are multiple lines of information I want to discuss, I've broken my thoughts up for ease of reference.
----------------------------
God's work in a fallen world
----------------------------
At the very beginning, I want to set a framework which is largely theological (but then this entire discussion is ultimately theological, isn't it?). The framework is an over-arching view of all reality such that individual events, including OT laws, are viewed through that prism.
Essentially, the Christian worldview is this...at the very beginning God lived in perfect harmony with man (Adam and Eve). At some point, both Adam and Eve freely chose to rebel against God, choosing to seek happiness through their own efforts rather than relying fully on God for their well-being. This resulted in the fall of man. As a result of this, man's steps to find his own well-being under his own efforts (through his own understanding, etc.) resulted in much of the turmoil we see in the ancient world. The value of people had been forgotten, the relationship with God had been lost, etc.
God, in response to the fall, set about on a quest to reclaim mankind. As part of this effort, he had to remind us of certain things. These include such notions as man's radical dependence upon God for our very existence. It also included notions such as compassion and forgiveness, the value of man and the equality of all people. But in order to do this, God had to work within the societies and their laws in place at that time. Thus, God stepped into an imperfect world doing imperfect things and he slowly began to shape them back toward the idea, which was in place in the Garden.
Thus, much of what we see in the Old Testament, while it isn't the ideal, is representative of God's reform efforts. Through his work to remind us all of who we once were before the fall, he restored to us such notions as the dignity of man, the love of equality, etc. In the present context, the laws regarding slavery must be viewed through this prism if they are to be understood in their proper context.
As an example of what I'm saying, consider the following verse from Matthew. In this passage, Jesus is discussing the laws from the Old Testament regarding divorce:
Matthew 19
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?
4 Haven t you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.
7 Why then, they asked, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?
8 Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
The Old Testament (OT) laws were never intended to be permanent. They were, instead, simply tools used by God to draw man back to the original relationship that we once had with Him before the Fall. In the context which I have provided above, this verse makes immediate sense. God created an ideal (the "way from the beginning"). Man's hearts were hard as a result of the fall, so God provided certain accommodations as stepping stones back to the ideal. But the OT law was never intended to be in place permanently and Jesus confirms this view by his statement. Jesus makes it clear that there was a higher purpose "in the beginning", and it's the context within which we need to work as we look at the concept of slavery in the Bible.
Let me offer one caveat at this point...it is obvious that some who are reading this won't choose to accept this context, but will instead scoff at it and persist in trying to use the verses below as evidence of a God that is pro-slavery. The point needs to be made, however, that if the Christian worldview is correct then the framework I've provided is likely correct as well. And if the framework is correct, then attempts to detract from it are not only unwarranted, but they demonstrate that the people doing so are not interested in the truth, but are merely seeking to attack Christianity even if it requires distortions of the truth to do so.
In any case, the view I've listed above is consistent with the Christian worldview and will be the context for all of the comments to follow.
----------------------------------
Slavery vs. Indentured Servanthood
----------------------------------
It is very important, when considering slavery in the OT, not to make the mistake of seeing the form of slavery that existed in the US until the 1800s. This form of slavery has very little resemblance to the slavery mentioned in the OT and the use of the same word is unfortunate. In order to truly understand what slavery meant during the writing of the OT, it's important to look at the original language, and also to review what slavery truly was during that time in history.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, so when we look at the concept of slavery it's important to understand it in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word used for slave is 'ebed' and as Hebrew scholars report, this word is better used to describe a servant or even an employee than a slave in the sense that 21st century Americans typically think of slavery. A quote from "Is God a Moral Monster" is appropriate and helps to explain this in a bit more detail:
"A mistake critics make is associating servanthood in the Old Testament with antebellum (prewar) slavery in the South...By contrast, Hebrew (debt) servanthood could be compared to similar conditions in colonial America. Paying fares for passage to America was too costly for many individuals to afford. So they'd contract themselves out, working in the households - often in apprentice-like positions - until they paid back their debts. One-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to Britain's colonies were indentured servants.
"Likewise, an Israelite strapped for shekels might become an indentured servant to pay off his debt to a "boss" or "employer" ('adon). Calling him a "master" is often way too stron a term, just as the term 'ebed ("servant, employee") typically shouldn't be translated "slave." John Goldingay comments that 'there is nothing inherently lowly or undignified about being an 'ebed." Indeed it is an honorable, dignified term." (p. 125)
As a final point on the word 'ebed', which is the Hebrew word translated as "slave", consider these verses:
Isaiah 41:8 & 9
8 But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
you descendants of Abraham my friend,
9 I took you from the ends of the earth,
from its farthest corners I called you.
I said, You are my servant ;
I have chosen you and have not rejected you.
James 2:23
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called God s friend.
We see in these verses that Abraham and his descendants were called God's servants, per Isaiah (servants in this verse use the Hebrew word 'ebed'). We also see from both Isaiah and James that Abraham is God's friend. This further illustrates that there is little comparison between the Hebrew word for "slave" and the concept of a slave that Westerners typically envision.
Based on this, it becomes apparent that slaves in the OT were nothing like the slaves in the antebellum South (or other harsh "property-based" systems of slavery). They typically entered their roles voluntarily to pay off debt, or perhaps due to being in poverty and entering the protection of an employer who would provide them with food and shelter in exchange for their service.
-------------------------
A solution for the debtor
-------------------------
In the ANE, as has already been stated, entering the service of another person was a common occurrence. This service often had the characteristics of an apprentice or a contracted employee. This relationship allowed people with significant debt to work off that debt rather than becoming destitute. This was apparently a very common relationship in the ANE, and it was purely voluntary on the part of the person entering the employee of a master.
----------------------
Protection of the poor
----------------------
Another important aspect of slavery in Israel was that of taking care of the poor. God provided multiple ways to take care of the poor (allowing them to gather uncollected food in the field after the harvest, for instance), and the structure of someone taking an impoverished person or family into his employee was a way to keep those people from death from lack of food, shelter, etc. Remember, there were no social systems in place at the time, and this system allowed these people to be properly protected and cared for as they entered the employee of an earthly master.
People in this situation were even able to earn money and escape their impoverished state. This becomes especially relevant when we remember that all slaves were to go free after 7 years of service to their master. And even then, servants were given the choice of entering a lifelong relationship with their master. The fact that a formal process was put in place for this speaks to the fact that this was not a rare occurrence.
A brief example of people selling themselves into slavery in order to be taken care of is seen in Genesis:
Genesis 47
13 There was no food, however, in the whole region because the famine was severe; both Egypt and Canaan wasted away because of the famine. 14 Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain they were buying, and he brought it to Pharaoh s palace. 15 When the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan was gone, all Egypt came to Joseph and said, Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? Our money is all gone.
16 Then bring your livestock, said Joseph. I will sell you food in exchange for your livestock, since your money is gone. 17 So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he gave them food in exchange for their horses, their sheep and goats, their cattle and donkeys. And he brought them through that year with food in exchange for all their livestock.
18 When that year was over, they came to him the following year and said, We cannot hide from our lord the fact that since our money is gone and our livestock belongs to you, there is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land. 19 Why should we perish before your eyes we and our land as well? Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh. Give us seed so that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become desolate.
20 So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh s, 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude,[c] from one end of Egypt to the other. 22 However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.
23 Joseph said to the people, Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. 24 But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children.
25 You have saved our lives, they said. May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.
26 So Joseph established it as a law concerning land in Egypt still in force today that a fifth of the produce belongs to Pharaoh. It was only the land of the priests that did not become Pharaoh s.
27 Now the Israelites settled in Egypt in the region of Goshen. They acquired property there and were fruitful and increased greatly in number.
Note that though the Israelites sold themselves into slavery, they were allowed to retain the majority of their own produce, they could (and did) acquire property, and were able to live fruitful lives. This is a perfect example of how the slavery mentioned in the OT is very different than the antebellum slavery of the South in the US.
------------------------------------------
Were slaves in OT Law considered property?
------------------------------------------
In response to charges from non-believers that slaves were considered property in the OT, several points need to be made:
First, it's clear that slaves have significant rights in the OT. As an example, a slave owner who killed his slave was, himself, guilty of murder. Does someone get charged with murder because they've destroyed their own property?
Second, in response to an anticipated objection about OT verses that discuss the buying and selling of slaves, Dr. Copan offers a comparison of a football player on a professional team. The player can be "sold" to another team, and in fact this happens all the time. But this doesn't mean that the football player is merely property. Instead, the way to view the football transaction (and the transaction of buying/selling slaves in the OT) is the idea of transferring a contract for someone to have them work for someone else. If a man had partially paid off his debt, for instance, maybe a contract could be negotiated such that he could conclude his debt service with a 2nd employer. Again, it's important to stress that this is nothing like the slave blocks or the African refugees chained up for sale that the US remembers all-too-well.
---------------------------
Time-Limitations on Slavery
---------------------------
One very unique character of slavery within Israel is the time-limitation on it. After 7 years of labor, a slave was to have his debt canceled and he was to go free (and in the year of Jubilee which took place every 50 years all slaves were to go free throughout Israel). This supports the idea that slaves were not property but were instead to be treated with respect. Their required service was limited, and they knew its limits as they voluntarily entered the service of their masters.
Two specific points on this that should be noted:
1. Foreigners were not necessarily released after 7 years. As is described below, the definition of "foreigner" is someone who is hostile to the nation of Israel. These were typically prisoners of war or those who worked to undermine the nation of Israel in some way (seducing the men to serve idols, etc.). Even so, there is evidence (Lev. 25:47) that these people could also get out of their status of service to a master. They were to be treated fairly and not oppressed (Exodus 22:21), which lends support to the idea that they could earn their freedom as well as the Israelite slave.
2. Some have been concerned about verses which discuss a man earning his freedom while his wife and children are not similarly freed (Exodus 21). First, this verse specifically says that if the man was married prior to entering the service of a master, his wife is to be released with him upon his release. But if he was married during his time of service, the wife was to remain behind along with any children they had during his term of service. In answer to this seeming inequity, it's necessary to look at the terms of the wife as well as the husband. Perhaps the wife is only in her 3rd year of service when her husband is freed. Or perhaps she has previously gone through the ritual to declare herself to be a servant for life to her master. Thus, this rule is not immoral or an indication that people were property. It merely reflects that the husband and wife were at different stages of their obligation to their master when he was released. And even then, God provided guidelines for how the man can choose to handle this situation. He could choose to re-enter his master's service or he could remain free and wait his wife's release.
------------------
Case Law in the OT
------------------
In many of the verses relating to slavery (as well as other areas beyond the scope of this discussion), God is not seeking to implement anything. Instead, he is stepping into an existing situation and is giving guideliness for what is acceptable and unacceptable in that situation. This is a direct example of God working within the cultural situation of the time, taking a situation that is less than perfect and beginning to move people back toward the idea which existed before the Fall.
As we look at the various boundaries and rules God put in place related to slavery, we see that there is a stark contrast between the OT laws and the laws of other ANE societies. While these situations were certainly not ideal, God worked within them to begin reforming mankind, moving him toward his original plan for all mankind.
----------------------------------------
Comparing Israel with other ANE cultures
----------------------------------------
When looking at slavery laws (among other laws), one important thing to do is to compare the OT Laws with those of other ANE cultures. When we do so, we see that the OT Laws represented a huge leap forward in the protection, dignity and fair treatment of slaves. Whereas other cultures viewed slaves as property, OT Law considered them as people with rights (they could not be mistreated, they couldn't be kidnapped and sold, if they ran away from an unfair master, they couldn't be returned, if someone killed them, the master doing this was guilty of murder, etc.).
According to Peter Garnsey in his book "Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine" (Cambridge University Press, 1996), slaves were considered to be the property of the master, their owner's rights over their person and work were total and absolute, and they even had their identity stripped when they became slaves. Slaves in Israel weren't treated this way. In fact, according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, "we have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters."
This fits very well with the idea of a God working within the cultural context at the time, seeking to reform the hearts and minds of mankind in order to bring them back to the ideal which was in place before the Fall. It shows that the first steps toward abolishing slavery were already in place, and that followers of God were being taught that slaves weren't property but people...masters didn't have privileges, they had obligations to protect and care for their servants.
While no one denies that the institution of slavery was a less than perfect institution, it would be wrong to use slavery to claim that God is a moral monster. The fact that the OT Laws were used to begin the process (slow as it was) of reforming mankind (as evidenced by the changes from viewing slaves as property to people, etc.) points to a God that is working through time and within the culture in a process of redemption. God isn't a moral monster, but he was working within a very amoral culture to re-acquaint mankind with the morality and relationship he had designed us for in the beginning.
------------------------------------------
Three key laws in Israel regarding slavery
------------------------------------------
One of the most important considerations when thinking of slavery in the Old Testament is the existence of certain laws that, if followed, would have eliminated the possibility of the forms of slavery we saw in the earlier part of the history of the US. These laws provided a foundational set of boundaries for Israel, and ensured that the harsh forms of slavery we're more familiar with in the antebellum South simply couldn't have happened (as long as people followed these laws, of course). These laws are listed below:
ANTI-KIDNAPPING LAWS
The Old Testament strictly forbade kidnapping. In fact, the punishment for kidnapping was the death of the kidnapper. Just this law alone would have prevented the slave trade in US history since virtually all of our slaves came to the US via acts of kidnapping (either they were kidnapped directly by the slave traders, or they were taken by neighboring tribes and then sold to the slave traders). The following verses illustrate this prohibition.
Exodus 21
16 Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
As this verse explains, anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper s possession".
Deuteronomy 24
7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
TREATMENT OF INJURED SLAVES
In most ANE cultures, injuring, mutilating and even killing one's slaves was commonplace. But this was not God's plan for Israel. The OT Laws are very clear that injury to a slave was grounds for that slave to go free. These laws are examples of how God was beginning to reform the hearts and minds of His people. Slaves weren't simply property to be treated however the master felt. They were people entitled to protection, and with certain rights of they were harmed.
The following passage illustrates how the OT laws emphasized the dignity of slaves and didn't allow Israel to simply treat them as property.
Exodus 21
26 An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
PROTECTION FOR RUNAWAY SLAVES
The 3rd law that emphasizes dignity and humanity of slaves is the restrictions around returning runaway slaves. When it comes to the US policies, the rule was that runaway slaves should be returned to their master. But the Biblical standard clearly shows that such behavior was against God's will. Slaves were not to be treated as property but as people. Runaway slaves were not to be harmed or returned, they were to be sheltered and protected. this is illustrated in the following verse:
Deuteronomy 23
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
What do these three laws illustrate? They demonstrate that God was interested in the welfare of all people, including slaves. He had strong prohibitions against kidnapping, and he also put laws in place to protect the welfare of slaves who had been harmed, or who were running away from harsh masters.
If these laws had been followed in the antebellum South, not only would slaves have been treated far more humanely (and thought of as people rather than as property), but slavery would not have been able to survive as an institution in the first place. As Paul Copan said it in the book from which this information comes said (on p. 132):
"We can plainly affirm that if the three clear laws of the Old Testament had been followed in the South - that is, the anti-kidnapping, and-harm, and anti-slave return regulations...then slavery wouldn't have arisen in America."
In other words, in contrast to God being pro-slavery, He put laws in place that, if followed, would have PREVENTED slavery in the US from ever happening in the first place.
-------------------------------------------------
Did the word 'acquire' mean slaves were property?
-------------------------------------------------
For those who would object to the idea that slaves in the OT are not property because certain verses talk of masters acquiring slaves, it's important to point out that the Hebrew word for acquire (qanah) did not require this interpretation. In fact, several verses in which this specific word is use argue against the idea of 'qanah' referring to property.
Ruth 4
Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, "Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelek, Kilion and Mahlon. 10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, Mahlon s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from his hometown. Today you are witnesses!"
Anyone knowing anything about the love Boaz had for Ruth would certainly understand that Ruth was in no way considered to be Boaz's property!
Genesis 1
Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, 'With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.'
In this verse, qanah is used in reference to Eve "bringing forth" a man. Certainly the idea of property is not intended here either.
Both of these verses illustrate the idea that even in places where the English translation may at first make it appear that a slave is being acquired as a type of property, these concerns are shown to be invalid upon further scrutiny. This is one of the reasons why scholars don't simply take a quick reading from an English translation and then apply a 21st century mindset to it in order to draw their conclusions. Instead, they recognize that to properly understand the original meaning of a passage from the OT (as with all ancient documents), the culture, language, mindset, purpose, etc. must all be examined in order to develop a correct understanding.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Commands toward Israel regarding strangers (foreigners and aliens)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Another objection which has relevance is that of Israelite slaves versus slaves from foreign nations. This objection will be addressed in the following 2 sections.
First, it is true that there were differences between the ways Israelites were to treat each other and the way they were to treat non-Israelites. In fact, Israel had some very direct commands from God in this regard. They were commanded over and over to treat non-Israelites well since they were once prisoners themselves in Egypt. Some verses which illustrate this are:
Exodus 22
21 Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
Exodus 23
9 Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
Leviticus 19
33 When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God"
Additional verses that illustrate this same concept include Deuteronomy 5:15, 10:19, 15:15, 16:12, and 24:18-22
Each of these illustrate the attitude Israel was to have toward foreigners. They were not to be mistreated or oppressed. In fact, they were to be treated the same as someone who has native-born in Israel.
Further specifics on how non-Israelites were to be treated can be seen in the following verses:
Leviticus 23
22 When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 10
19 "And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt"
Deuteronomy 24
14 "Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. 15 Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise, they may cry to the LORD against you, and you will be guilty of sin".
Deuteronomy 24
19 "When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this".
From these verses, we see a general principle of how Israel is to treat non-Israelites. As we move into a discussion of foreign slaves, this foundation must serve as our guidepost.
--------------------------
What about foreign slaves?
--------------------------
When directly considering how non-Israelite slaves were to be treated, it's important to point out an additional feature of the Hebrew language. Within the OT, the concepts of 'alien' and 'foreigner' were not synonymous. Each had their own word in Hebrew, and each had a separate meaning in the minds of Israel.
First, the term 'alien' [Hebrew: ger] was someone who had come into Israel and had adopted the practices and beliefs of Israel. They were living among them, worshipping the God of Israel, and as such they were treated largely as a native-born Israelite. By contrast, the term 'foreigner' [Hebrew: nokri] had a very different concept. Foreigners were either businessmen who were trading in Israel but maintained their pagan beliefs and attitudes, or they were prisoners of war living within Israel following a military campaign.
Whereas aliens were very much pro-Israel, foreigners typically were not. In fact, the very term 'foreigner' [nokri] carries with it a negative connotation. Foreign slaves were thought to be dangerous or hostile to Israel, and releasing them would have posed a threat to the nation. Specific verses that illustrate this concept include:
Foreigners are associated with idolatry:
Joshua 24:20 - "If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.
Jeremiah 5:19 - "And when the people ask, Why has the LORD our God done all this to us? you will tell them, As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your own land, so now you will serve foreigners in a land not your own. "
Malachi 2:11 - "Judah has been unfaithful. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the LORD loves by marrying women who worship a foreign god"
Foreigners are associated with sin and impurity:
Nehemiah 9:2 - "Those of Israelite descent had separated themselves from all foreigners. They stood in their places and confessed their sins and the sins of their ancestors"
Nehemiah 13:30 - "So I purified the priests and the Levites of everything foreign, and assigned them duties, each to his own task"
Foreigners are called the enemy:
2 Samuel 22:45 - "foreigners cower before me; as soon as they hear of me, they obey me"
But even though foreigners were typically not pro-Israel, were viewed as being generally hostile toward Israel, and were often only in the country as the result of being taken as POWs, Israel was still commanded by God to treat them fairly (Exodus 22:21, for example). In fact, there is even evidence that foreign women could be elevated to the status of Israelite wives if they so chose (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). So even with this group of people who were often hostile and actively opposing Israel, there were rules about fair treatment and even integration into the Israelite society.
So what about the foreign slave? To answer this, it is best to refer directly to the author from which all of this material is drawn. Quoting from Dr. Copan's "Is God a Moral Monster" on page 143, we read the following:
"In other instances, the presence of foreigners was tricky. If Israel fought against other nations, some POWs might need to be assimilated into Israelite society. Structures were needed to prevent them from rising up in rebellion against their new masters or remaining consolidated in their own land where they could muster forces and launch a counterattack. In cases where Israel's captured enemies (especially the males) didn't care for the 'laws of the land' and posed an internal threat to israel's safety (e.g. Num. 21-22; 25; 31), servanthood was one way of subduing or controlling this menace."
But even when it came to foreigners, who were generally suspicious of and often hostile to Israelite culture, God commanded that they be treated respectfully and not oppressed.
--------------------------------------
How slaves different between OT and NT
--------------------------------------
When looking at the New Testament (NT) in contrast to the Old Testament, it's important to note that slavery had taken on a different character by the time the NT documents were written. Whereas we've already seen that OT slavery was focused on elevating the status of slaves as persons, and that they were largely either indentured servants or POWs from foreign nations who were treated with fairness and respect, the Roman slavery which was predominant during the NT was a form of property slavery. While slaves retained significant rights even within the Roman system, they were not thought of as persons, but were instead considered to be property of their masters.
While viewed as property, however, a Roman slave's rights included things such as:
1. the ability to start their own business and even become wealthy in the process
2. Purchasing their own freedom
3. Purchasing and owning property, including slaves of their own
So even though the Roman system was a move toward considering slaves as property, it still afforded slaves certain rights that were not generally present in later forms of slavery that went against Biblical laws as outlined previously.
----------------------
Christ opposed slavery
----------------------
It is sometimes said that Christ didn't oppose slavery, but a few important points need to be made here.
First, there is a specific reference from Christ that can be interpreted as his opposition to slavery. In Luke we read the following:
Luke 4
18 The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord s favor.
Commentaries on verse 19 (in reference to 'the year of the Lord's favor') indicate that Jesus was likely referring to the year of Jubilee in which all slaves in Israel were to go free. Two specific references illustrate this point:
Barnes' Notes on the Bible: "There is, perhaps, here, an allusion to the year of jubilee - the fiftieth year, when the trumpet was blown, and through the whole land proclamation was made of the liberty of Hebrew slaves, of the remission of debts, and of the restoration of possessions to their original families"
Wesley's Notes: "The acceptable year - Plainly alluding to the year of jubilee, when all, both debtors and servants, were set free"
From this we can see that Jesus did address the idea of freedom, and proclaimed that he had come to "set the oppressed free". while there is little doubt that Christ was speaking symbolically of his work to free man from sin, it would be wrong to assume that his ministry was simultaneously advocating the institution of slavery in place.
Second, the point has already been made that God worked within the cultural contexts in order to redeem mankind, restoring them (and us) to the ideal of man as it existed before the Fall. Given that we've already seen this in the OT laws, it makes sense that Jesus would continue this same effort, working on the hearts and minds of those who followed his message. The fact is that the message of Jesus throughout his ministry was characterized by his acceptance of the unacceptable, his fellowshipping with the outcast, his elevating the despised and rejected, and his redemption of those thought to be beyond redemption.
Third, further evidence of the effects of Christ's ministry of the equality of all people is seen in the teachings of Paul, who proclaimed such things as:
Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Ephesians 6:9 - "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him"
From these verses, it is evident that Paul is teaching that both the slave and the master are equal, and that masters have an obligation to treat their slaves in a humanitarian way. In fact, it's verses like these which were the foundation for the anti-slavery movements that largely eradicated slavery in the Western world in later centuries.
It's true that Jesus never came out and commanded an end to slavery, but through his teachings about love and equality, he planted the seed that changed the hearts of men and brought about an end to slavery as an institution among the peoples that follow his teachings.
------------------------------------------------------
Slaves were treated as equals within Christian circles
------------------------------------------------------
We've already seen that Jesus talked about how he came to proclaim freedom for the prisoners, and how Paul declared that Christians are all "one in Christ Jesus". The implications for this were enormous, and very much against the culture at the time. Rather than viewing one's slave as property, this person was now the brother or sister of the Christian slaveowner. And beyond that, within the church it was entirely possible that the slave was a church leader while the master was not...thus, the roles of leadership would have been reversed!
In fact, the entire culture being set up within Christian circles was one of equality and love, and as such it was impossible for traditional master/slave relationships to survive within Christianity. Instead, a system of equality and consideration of each other as 'brothers and sisters' was rapidly stepping into place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian views on slavery were behind freedom movements throughout history
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though some secularists attempt to deny it, there is simply no doubt that the great anti-slavery movements in the world were motivated by the teachings and example as set forth in the Old and New Testaments. Using many of the same arguments and passages mentioned in this document, such people as William Wilberforce and the members of the abolitionist movement advocated for the abolishment of slavery. In addition, other forms of inequality were challenged using scripture by such people as Martin Luther King.
In his essay entitled "Christianity responsible for equality and liberty", Dinesh D'Souza says the following regarding the impact Christianity has had in history on the abolishment of slavery:
"But Christianity, from its very beginning, discouraged the enslavement of fellow Christians. We read in one of Paul's letters that Paul himself interceded with a master named Philemon on behalf of his runaway slave, and encouraged Philemon to think of his slave as a brother instead. Confronted with the question of how a slave can also be a brother, Christians began to regard slavery as indefensible.
"As a result, slavery withered throughout medieval Christendom and was eventually replaced by serfdom. While slaves were "human tools," serfs had rights of marriage, contract, and property ownership that were legally enforceable. And of course serfdom itself would eventually collapse under the weight of the argument for human dignity.
"Moreover, politically active Christians were at the forefront of the modern anti-slavery movement. In England, William Wilberforce spearheaded a campaign that began with almost no support and was driven entirely by his Christian convictions -- a story powerfully told in the recent film Amazing Grace. Eventually Wilberforce triumphed, and in 1833 slavery was outlawed in Britain. Pressed by religious groups at home, England then took the lead in repressing the slave trade abroad.
"The debate over slavery in America, too, had a distinctively religious flavor. Free blacks who agitated for emancipation invoked the narrative of liberation in the Book of Exodus: "Go down Moses, way down to Egypt land and tell old Pharoah, let my people go." But of course throughout history people have opposed slavery for themselves while being happy to enslave others. Indeed there were many black slave owners in the American South. What is remarkable in this historical period in the Western world is the rise of opposition to slavery in principle.
"Among the first to embrace abolitionism were the Quakers, and other Christians soon followed in applying politically the biblical notion that human beings are equal in the eyes of God. Understanding equality in this ingrained way, they adopted the view that no man has the right to rule another man without his consent. This latter idea (contained most famously in the Declaration of Independence) is the moral root both of abolitionism and of democracy."
For those who feel that Christianity or the Judeo-Christian God are somehow supportive of slavery, it is odd that such a supportive system would itself be the catalyst that ultimately brought slavery down. In contrast, it is evident when examined closely that God and Christianity were and are deeply opposed to anything that would degrade an individual or consider him to be property. Thus, concerns that Christianity was compatible with slavery are simply unwarranted.
---------------------------------------------------------
Why didn't God simply outlaw slavery and be done with it?
---------------------------------------------------------
Some people wonder why God disn't simply outlaw slavery directly rather than working in the cultural context and slowly shaping man back toward the original ideal in place before the Fall. In answer to this, a couple of responses are appropriate.
First, as an analogy, consider the work of a blacksmith shaping a piece of metal into a useful tool. In order to properly shape this tool he must take the metal as it is and shape it over time, applying heat and pressure at proper times, until the metal becomes whatever useful tool the smith is creating. If the smith simply decided to skip crucial steps in the process of shaping, he might end up with an inferior tool that isn't prepared to withstand the pressure that will be applied to it so that it can effectively do its job (imagine a brittle plow that breaks instead of resisting the pressure of the earth it is plowing). Or, if the smith is particularly impatient he may end up simply ruining the metal so that it can't be used at all. In this same way, God worked within the cultural context to shape mankind toward the ideal for which he first designed them. If he had simply rushed forward, the result could have been the same as the impatient blacksmith who ruins the metal rather than shaping it into the useful tool that was his goal.
To further illustrate why God might not have chosen to simply outlaw slavery, consider the following excerpt from the same book (p. 153):
"On the one hand, a slave uprising would do the gospel a disservice an dprove a direct threat to an oppressive Roman establishment (e.g. "Masters, release your slaves!" or "Slaves, throw off your chains!"). Rome would meet any flagrant opposition with speedy, foreful, lethal opposition. So Peter's admonition to unjustly treated slaves [in 1 Peter 2:18-20] implies a suffering endured without retaliation. No, suffering in itself is not good (which would be a sadistic attitude to adopt and certainly not the view of Scripture); rather the right response in the midst of suffering is commendable.
"On the other hand, the early Christians undermined slavery indirectly and certainly rejeted many common Greco-Roman assumptions about it, such as Aristotle's (slaves were inherently inferior to masters, as were females to males). Just as Jesus bore unjust suffering for the redemption of others and entrusted himself to the One who judges justly (1 Peter 2:20-24), so Christian slaves could bear hardship to show others - including their masters - the way of Christ and redemption through him, all the while entrusting themselves to God. Thus, like yeast, such Christlike living could have a gradual leavening effect on society so that oppressive institutions like slavery could finally fall away."
This was God's attitude toward slavery, and his chosen method of addressing it has resulted in the eradication of slavery as a legal and accepted institution in the Western world.
=========================================================================
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC COMMENTS NOT DIRECTLY TIED TO QUOTED BIBLE PASSAGES:
=========================================================================
In this section, I will provide specific responses to some of the comments made which aren't directly tied to quoted passages. I'm not breaking these passages out based on who posted them, or when they were posted, but since I've addressed many of the points related to these passages already in my comments above, my responses may be somewhat shorter. For further information related to these passages, the reader is referred to the general comments section above.
//Slavery does NOT equal "voluntary servitude". That is, frankly, the most transparent attempt at justifying biblical mentions of "slavery" as I've ever heard. Yes, there was such a thing as "voluntary" (it wasn't really all that voluntary, though, was it?) servitude, but there was also flat out slavery//
- As you can see based on the lengthy discussion above of slavery and its original meaning in the culture of the time, your comment merely shows the lack of understanding and disregard for the cultural context, the original language, the mindset of the authors, and the purpose of the slavery laws. It is trivially easy to make a statement like this, and I will agree with you that slavery was not the optimal set of circumstances. But the failure to properly analyze the background and culture within which the slavery passages were made is apparent in this comment, and as such it is an invalid conclusion.
//Had YOU been a slave 2,000 years ago, you'd realize that slavery is slavery//
- I find this to be a very interesting statement. The originator of this statement seems to feel that he has a special status that allows him to understand what slavery must have felt like. It's important to note that he does this without any evidence to support his position, and discounts the Christian position even though our view is, by contrast, fully supported by deep scholarship, historical analysis, cultural inquiry, and logical inference. Thus, while this statement may seem to contain some substance on the surface, when considered for just a few minutes, it becomes obvious that the substance is, indeed, lacking.
- The assumption in this statement is intended to point out that Christians don't "realize that slavery is slavery". But based on the preceding section in which I have gone through this in some depth (and much greater depth can be obtained by reading "Is God A Moral Monster" among other texts), it is apparent that the one offering this post is, himself, unaware of the institution of slavery as it existed in both the Old and New Testaments.
//Now, where are these "strict laws" against "real" slavery that "god had", as you claim in your first post?//
- I have fully addressed this in the section above "Three Key Laws in Israel Regarding Slavery". At this point, the only valid conclusion to draw is that these 3 laws were, in fact, in place for the Israelites and if they were followed, slavery in the earlier history of the US would never have been possible.
//As for having laws against mistreating a slave, even IF you are correct about that: owning a person in the first place is mistreatment enough, don't you think?//
- Given that ownership of a slave was essentially an institution of voluntary servitude (to pay off debts or to escape extreme poverty that would likely lead to one's death) or as the result of prisoners taken in battle (POWs), this statement would seem to be mistaken. Further, the humane treatment of all slaves (and the fact that they were considered people rather than property in the first place), as well as the strict boundaries on the length of their servitude, would also mitigate against this charge. It is simply a fact that slavery, while not a perfect institution, was used in Israel to begin turning the minds of men toward the idea that all men (and women) have intrinsic value, and thus that they deserve protection and fair treatment. Were there slaves that were mistreated? Of course. But the law even provided for those contingencies:
a. If they were harmed, they were to go free
b. If they were kiilled, the owner would be executed as a murderer
c. If a runaway slave came into Israel, he or she was protected and allowed to live among them
- Thus it is simply true that, contrary to a previous statement, slavery was not slavery...and any claims to the contrary simply reflect the lack of understanding of this institution in the OT.
//Men did not begin as "perfect" and then become immoral. We evolved from simpler and into more complex life forms. Morality formed and evolved along the way. It took RELIGION to find ways around morality//
- Without diverting into the issue of morality, or the overblown claims that morality is a product of evolution, let me simply point out that this statement is merely a presumption that has not been supported by any evidence. While this is, admittedly, a different topic and as such won't be addressed further here, I will simply note that if this view is to be believed, the one advocating it must provide evidence as to why his assertion is true. He has not chosen to offer any evidence, but has simply assumed his statement to be true. Thus, it can be dismissed at this point as not supported by any evidence.
//Religion is not the source of morality. Quite the opposite: religion provided the "rulers" with some convenient justifications to circumvent a sense of morality that had already existed. It takes a belief in the supernatural to think you're fundamentally better than someone else, and, thus, can own them//
- While this continues on the same theme as the previous comments, a couple of responses are warranted at this point:
a. This notion of some uniform "religion" is an ill-formed concept. There is no homogenous "religion" to which all believers conform. I don't worship "religion", I worship Jesus Christ. I am not a "Religionist", I am a Christian. Thus, any criticisms of my faith should be directed against Christianity rather than simply painting with a broad brush and assuming some uniform "thing" known as religion even exists.
b. Regarding the idea that belief in the supernatural is necessary for people to think they're better than others, I have a couple of questions:
- did Joseph Stalin think he was better than those he oppressed and killed in Soviet Russia?
- What about Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, and Mao? All of these men were affirmed atheists, and clearly they saw themselves as "better than" those they ruled.
- What about the atheists who have labeled themselves as "brights" while assigning the title "dims" to Christians?
In other words, with only a few questions it's trivially easy to demonstrate how flawed this notion is that "believe in the supernatural is necessary for people to think they're better than others".
//Nevermind the fact that women are slaves in just about every scriptural passage I've read. Wives are property. Women are property//
- The idea of people as property has also been addressed and debunked above. In OT law, no one was considered to be property. And in the OT laws, we see significant movement toward elevating the status of women (laws against adultery, for example...laws of protecting women when someone rapes them [the rapist is put to death]). We even see examples of foreign women who could break with their tribe, become integrated into the Israelite culture, and be elevated to the status of an Israelite wife. For those who doubt that the Bible elevates women, it is recommended that they read the book of Ruth where any notion of "women are property" will quickly be put to rest. One can also read such stories as that of Jacob who worked for seven years just to earn the right to marry Rachel.
Genesis 29:20 - "So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her."
//Your "god" was not good. Your "god" was not all-knowing. Your "god", if eternal, would have been abundantly clear in the bible (since he revealed it to man, and since he Jesus, as himself, to Earth to "fix" things), would have stated, boldly, clearly, unambiguously:
Slavery in all its possible forms is wrong. Always.
Women are equal; they are not property. Men and women are not different in terms of their individual freedoms, liberties, etc.
See how easy that was?//
- The first of these comments relates to the omni-properties of God and as such is beyond the scope of this topic (though any desire to discuss these properties of God are certainly welcomed). Beyond this, the comment on God's making quick and direct statements outlawing slavery has also been addressed above. As such, the reader is referred to that section for additional comment.
//Instead, it took the Enlightenment to begin to fix the barbarity that was and still is Christianity//
- At this point, it is important to point out some of the effects that the Englightenment has had on mankind. The list below is only a partial list:
1. The extreme brutality of the French Revolution
2. The massacres of millions of Russians under Vladimir Lenin & Joseph Stalin (these leaders were deeply influence by Karl Marx, an Enlightenment writer)
3. The massacres of the Jews under Hitler's Third Reich (Hitler was very influence by Nietzsche, an Enlightenment writer)
4. The deaths under Mao Tse Tung in China (also influence by Marx and Engels)
The list could also contain many other regimes that denied God and attempted to extol man and reason. While the Enlightenment did have many good qualities (certainly seeking knowledge and appealing to reason are good things), there is no question that the Enlightenment has a very dark side.
By contrast, Christianity has a notable list of very good things it has done (this list is from page p. 218 of "Is God a Moral Monster"):
- Eradicating Slavery
- Opposing infanticide and rescuing infants from exposure
- Eliminating gladiatorial games
- Building hospitals and hospices
- Elevating women's status/rights
- Founding Europe's and North America's great universities
- Writing extraordinary works of literature
- Engaging in writing about philosophy and theology and the life of reason
- Creating beautiful masterpieces of art, sculpture, and architecture
- Establishing modern science
- Composing brilliant music
- Advocating human rights
There is no question that people have done some terrible things in the name of Christianity (the Witch Trials, the Crusades, etc.). But unlike the Enlightenment, when people did these things in the name of Christianity they were going directly against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Thus they were acting in direct opposition to Christianity rather than in keeping with its teachings. No such thing can be said about the people who committed atrocities as a result of the Enlightenment.
In short, it is demonstrably false that Christianity is simply barbarity. It is a historically irrefutable fact that Christianity has been (and continues to be) largely responsible for many (if not most) of the great achievements in the Western world, and certainly when it comes to advances in human rights and the innate value of man.
======================================
RESPONSES TO VERSES QUOTED ON SLAVERY:
======================================
At this point, I'm going to take the general principles I've outlined above and will apply them to the specific verses everyone has mentioned. I'll deal with each of these verses in turn, though I may not take as much time with each if the principles of a particular verse are dealt with via a previous response (though I'll try to note that it's been responded to already). It's important to note that I am only responding to the verses that have been specifically listed, though the principles I've outlined above apply equally to all of the verses on slavery in the Bible.
-------------------------------------
Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
//Jesus discusses that it's ok to beat your slave, even if the slave didn't know he did something wrong//
- This passage could simply not have been taken more out of context. If you look at the full teaching, this is a metaphorical statement about people being prepared for God to return. Those who think that God has taken too long in coming and begin to mistreat others will themselves be dealt with in a just manner by God when he does arrive. In order to see this, it's necessary to look at the full passage, so let's do that. Here is the teaching in context:
Luke 12:35-48 - Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, ike servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. Truly I tell you, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the middle of the night or toward daybreak. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
"Peter asked, Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?
"The Lord answered, Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, My master is taking a long time in coming, and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
"The servant who knows the master s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
- Several things are obvious from this passage...
a. Jesus is talking about God's return at the end of time in the form of a parable (even Peter acknowledges this by his question)
b. Those awaiting God's return are rewarded and those who becomes abusive will be punished. This is completely consistent with the Christian message of God offering grace to all who will accept his love, and allowing those who reject him to meet him on the basis of his judgment instead. The consequences of that choice which we all get to make are expressed here in parable form.
c. Because this is a parable, the events are not meant to be taken literally...there is no literal wedding feast that the master has gone to, there is no servant who is literally beating other servants, and the master will not return to literally cut the unfaithful servant to pieces. But the teaching is clear...God will be returning and those who are his children (his faithful servants) will be brought into a joyful fellowship with Him. Those who reject God will receive the just reward for the choices they've made in their lives (those choices are compared to someone becoming drunk and beating their own slaves).
d. The picture of a slave being beaten in this parable is clearly a picture of someone doing that God condemns (he metes justice on the people doing this by metaphorically cutting them to pieces!)
e. But even in this picture, we see the mercy of God toward those unfaithful servants. He offers us a bit of further insight when he says that those who don't know the master's will (God's will) won't be treated as severely as those who knew God's will and chose to ignore it. Jesus uses the term "beaten with few blows" vs. "beaten with many blows" to illustrate this. And in this section of the passage he shows that even those who fall in the category of the unfaithful servant won't all suffer the same degree of justice...there will be those who didn't knowingly do the things they did, and thus they have less to account for.
- In summary, then, this verse shows the exact opposite of what is was quoted to show, and the one offering it has had to take it grossly out of context in order to try and win their point. But when we look at the verse, we see that the exact opposite is true. This is a parable and not a teaching. The idea of beating a servant is viewed as an evil act for which acts God will repay with justice. And even those acts of justice on God's part will still show leniency if the person who committed the acts did so without knowing the full implications of what they were doing.
- So contrary to this verse showing that Jesus supports slavery, it shows the exact opposite and the one who provided this quote is exposed as having gone to extremes to try and misquote this passage in order to try and make it say something that it has never said.
-------------------------------------
Ephesians 6:5: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
- This verse was discussed above briefly. Essentially, this is part of the commandments of Paul to those Christians in the 1st century who were Roman slaves. Because Christianity was not a movement in which violent rebellion was advocated, slaves were taught not to openly rebel but were to serve their masters as if they were serving God himself. This is the context and purpose of the passage in Esphesians. Through a slave's conduct and honorable behavior toward his master, it was even possible that he might win his master over to Christ, which is the ultimate purpose for all Christians.
In fact, if we look at the entire passage, we see that Paul was not only giving commands to slaves, but also to masters. He was very clearly commanding them not to treat their slaves badly, but to treat them with respect and kindness. In fact, the entire institution of slavery was eventually abolished due to this and other verses, since the commandments were so radically opposed to typical slave/master relationships...Paul taught that all men are equal in Christ, and that they were indeed "brother and sister" to each other. This fact was fundamentally incompatible with slavery, and it served to further shape the hearts and minds of Christians so that eventually slavery became a thing of the past...man was and is in the process of being redeemed such that he is restored to the original relationship for which God has intended us, and which existed before the Fall.
-------------------------------------
1 Timothy 6:1-2: "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."
- Again, the full passage is not quoted. Here is the full passage in context:
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves."
- We see that slaves (as all men) were to serve God in whatever station they found themselves. The reason for this was so that God's name wouldn't be slandered. Slaves, like all men, do not serve any earthly master or person...all Christians server God and as such the work we do is service and tribute to God. In this context, the Bible is very clear of what is considered acceptable service...slaves here are told to respect their masters and serve them faithfully. This is the way slaves were able to serve God, even in their unfortunate role.
- We also see an indication of the type of slave/master relationship that was more predominant in the OT...verse 2 talks about masters who are "fellow believers" and who are "devoted to the welfare of their slaves". Many times, these relationships were so close that slaves would devote themselves to serve their masters for life and would declare this through a formal ceremony in which their ear was pierced. Apparently beieving masters were to have a great deal of responsibility to care and provide for his slaves. And this relationship was described as causing the slave to consider their masters as "dear to them".
- Further commentary on this verse is essentially the same as that mentioned for Ephesians 6 above
-------------------------------------
1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
- Once more, only part of the passage is given, and the meaning is thus obscured. For the full impact, the entire chapter should be read. But for our purposes, verses 18 - 21 are enough to illustrate Peter's purpose:
"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps"
- For those who want to use this verse to say that the Bible is pro-slavery, this is obviously not the case. Peter calls the punishment slaves are receiving "unjust punishment" and he compares their sufferings to that of Christ, who also suffered for all mankind. Instead, the point of this verse is that the slave is to behave in such a way that no one ever has a legitimate reason to punish him. Thus, if punishment does occur people will see that it's unjust and will be drawn toward the slave for living an upstanding and righteous life even in the midst of his unjust treatment. In seeing this, those around him presumably might be drawn to Christ, which is the ultimate purpose of all Christians.
- So far from advocating slavery, this verse is merely encouraging slaves to behave in a righteous way even in the midst of a very unfortunate and unjust situation. Peter is not advocating slavery. He is, instead, advocating a lifestyle of service to God rather than resistance to men who treat us unjustly.
-------------------------------------
Leviticus 25:44-46: "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."
//A permanent inheritance? so much for 7 years//
- We've drawn the distinction between Israelites and foreigners above already, so the reader is referred to that section above for a discussion about foreigners. However, because this passage is a bit of a troubling text, I have decided to quote the response given in "Is God a Moral Monster" (p. 141) as a response:
"Here we come across a jarring text, a significant distinction between Israelite servants/employees and foeign workers in Israel. does this text regard foreign workers as nothing more than property?
"Before we jump to this conclusion, we should lok at what precedes this text - and at other scriptural conditions. When we do so, we'll continue to see that (1) these foreigners were still nowhere near the chattel slaves of the antebellum South; (2) a significant presence of apparently resentful foreigners required stricter measures than those for cooperative aliens who were willing to follow Israel's laws; (3) since only Israelites were allowed to own land (which ultimately belonged to Yahweh), foreigners who weren't in Israel just for business purposes were typically incoporated into Israelite homes to server there, unless they chose to live elsewhere; and (4) strangers in the land could, if they chose, not only be relased but potentially become persons of means."
- It remains true that if a foreigner was living in Israel, he was doing so because he had been brought there as a POW (or had been born to parents who were brought in as POWs). If they were willing to embrace Israel's laws and worship Israel's God, then they were not considered to be foreigners (nokri) but were instead considered to be aliens (ger). Israel did have specific laws in place to deal with hostiles, and this is an example of such a passage. But several concluding points need to be made.
a. Even foreigners could be elevated in Israel, as is the case with a foreign women who broke with her tribe and was elevated to the status of an Israelite wife
b. Even though foreigners were either hostile or enemies of Israel, God still commanded Israel to care for them and treat them with respect
c. These foreigners could still purchase their own freedom and eventually achieve status where they could have servants of their own
-------------------------------------
Exodus 21:2-6: "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever."
//Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?//
- This has already been discussed above. If a male servant was working off his 7-year debt and married a woman who was also working off her own 7-year debt (perhaps he was in year 5 and she was only in year 2), it wouldn't be an injustice for the master to require the wife to stay until her 7 years were worked off. The husband could leave and earn enough money to "buy off her contract". Or he could choose to stay with the master by dedicating himself to themaster for life. It's important to note that there weren't job boards of people hiring in the Ancient Near East. If the man left the employee of his master, where was he to go? If he had land he could farnm it, but if not he'd likely not have anywhere to turn. So the offer of letting the man stay wasn't a cruelty...it was an offer of a lifetime of employment and protection for both the man and his wife.
-------------------------------------
Exodus 21:7-11: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
- First, this verse is an example of the Case Law mentioned above. It wasn't issuing a commandment, but was seeking to set boundaries around an existing situation. Another quote from "Is God a Moral Monster" applies here (p. 114):
"We're left to wonder: What kind of father would sell his daughter? Actually, when a father sells his daughter, he's doing so out of economic desperation...which is more like contracted employment. In fact, the father is doing this out of concern for his family, and Israel's laws provided a safety net for the very poorest. Voluntary selling was a matter of survival in harsh financial circumstances. Temporarily contracting family members out to employers, who also provided room and board, was the most suitable alternative during hard times...As far as the marriageable daughter goes, a father would do his best to care for her as well. Here, he is trying to help his daughter find security in marriage; the father would arrange for a man of means to marry her."
- Notice the number of protections for the daughter in this verse:
a. She wasn't to be released after 7 years (a single woman with no one to take care of her was essentially being released to die...the Israelite laws wouldn't allow that, which is why women were not released in this situation). Of course, if she had gotten married to the master's son during this time, she also would not be released. But in this situation she would not be considered a servant any longer, but would be treated as a daughter.
b. The master cannot sell her to foreigners who might not abide by the laws of the OT in which women were protected and not treated as property (in fact, the master was said to have broken the contract with the woman...is it possible to break a contract with property?)
c. If the master marries the girl and then takes another wife, he is still not allowed to throw her out. He is still obligated to provide for her food and clothing, etc. (God is not condoning polygamy here...he is merely commenting on a situation that was already going on and he was including a requirement for the girl to be provided for even if the master married her and then chose another woman...even in this unfortunate circumstance, the girl was to be cared for and not simply tossed aside).
- Based on this, and the commentary above, it is apparent that this situation (while not perfect) is God's efforts to control a situation already going on, and to make sure the girl who was sold by her father was provided for and wasn't harmed in the process.
-------------------------------------
Exodus 21:20-21: "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]."
- First, note that if a servant is beaten and dies, the master will be put to death as well. The verse, in English, says "punished", but the Hebrew word is naqam, which always mean the death penalty when it was used in the OT.
- Second, the rod was not a dangerous weapon and the picture is not that of a slave tied to a post being beaten with whips until their backs bled. In the case that the servant didn't die, the master was simply seen as having disciplined his servant. If several days passed and the servant died, then the death was treated as an accident and the master was given the benefit of the doubt and was not, himself, executed.
Once again, this is a case law situation. Masters were already disciplining their servants with rods. God put in place a law that said the master would be put to death if he killed his servant. But he provided an opportunity for the master to be forgiven if it was obvious that the servant didn't directly die from the disciplining he received. Did servants receive discipline in the Bible? Yes. Did God institute this? No. Did he provide controls so that the servant was protected? Without question...the master who might be prone to beating his servant was certainly less inclined to do so if he knew that his actions might result in his own execution.
Thus, even in this unfortunate circumstance, God was elevating the status of the servant, holding the master accountable, and working on the hearts of all people. He was beginning the process of redeeming mankind, drawing him back to the ideal relationship for which he'd been created before the Fall.
SUMMARY:
========
Let me end by stating a couple of things...
First, I have no doubt that certain people reading this will discount what I've said on the basis that I'm simply trying to be an apologist for Christianity. However, if the facts are on my side, my motivation is irrelevant. If I am motivated to persuade others that the skies are overcast today, that does nothing to undermine the fact that the skies are, indeed, overcast. In the same way, if my facts are in order they are relevant regardless of my beliefs or motivation to present them on this forum.
Second, a powerful case can be made against the atheists who refuse to take the time to really investigate the Biblical texts. Instead of approaching these texts in a serious and honest manner, their only interest is in trying to undermine the Christian worldview, even if it means that they must avoid the facts. What I've presented is not my opinion, but is the result of much scholarship and serious inquiry into these matters. It has taken into consideration the culture, mindset, and historical/theological contexts in which these laws were handed down and carried out. Anyone wishing to reject the analysis I've related must take the topic equally seriously, and must show via the same level of scholarship why the conclusions I've listed here are incorrect. To reject what I've said without engaging seriously as I've suggested is merely a demonstration that they are not interested in the truth, but are simply seeking to defend their worldview at all costs regardless of how much the evidence turns against them.
Finally, it is very easy to pull verses out of context in order to seemingly support a presupposition. It takes more time to actually delve into the text in such a way that one gets at the original intent of the authors of these passages. I have attempted to do the best I can to take the latter course of action, and it is my hope that there will be some on here who will take a similar view. Those who choose not to, but instead decide merely to detract from what I've said, should be aware that their actions are evidence of their lack of interest in the truth.
As I said above, the analysis I've provided is all taken from Paul Copan's excellent book "Is God a Moral Monster". The commentary, by contrast, has been my own.
It is my sincere hope that some will read this and come to understand that ours is a God of love and protection for all those who seek Him. And in understanding this, it is my further hope that some will diligently choose to seek Him. I am, as always, available to help in this search should anyone want to talk further about this (or any) subject.
One last point...given that my response has been fairly exhaustive, I do not anticipate further debate on this thread on my part. Detractors are welcome to post their comments (and I have no doubt they will), but if I respond I'll simply be pointing them back to something I've already written in this essay. I have made it lengthy on purpose because I wanted to treat the topic seriously and provide more than a simple thumnail in response to the charges against God regarding slavery. Even so, I've only scratched the surface. For a more thorough treatment, readers are referred to Dr. Copan's excellent book.
Comments
Post a Comment