Slavery in the bible.

[mark kennedy]

If slavery is wrong, then it is wrong in any context. If we look at it morally we come to somewhat of a paradox that needs to be in some way resolved. Look at the following argument:

1. God is moral
2. Slavery is immoral
3. God permits slavery

Ok, let's see how that works on the root cause:

1. God is righteous
2. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34)
3. God hates sin.

When I use the term slavery I mean owning people as property and them being slaves for life. I'm not referring to indentured servitude where people sell their labor for a fixed period because of poverty or debt. The mosaic law permits both.

Yes it does, it also permits divorce for any reason:

For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” (Malachi 2:16)​

How do we resolve this paradox? Atheists will tend to deny (1) that God is moral.

Atheists will argue God does not exist, if he exists then to call God immoral is blasphemy.

Christians will usually try to argue (2) that the slavery permitted in the Bible is somehow not real slavery, but rather is more like hired labor or that protections for the treatment of slaves are sufficient to justify the practice.

I tend to argue that God is offering freedom from the causes of sin, slavery was symptomatic from a far more fundamental problem, called sin. The Exodus and the wilderness wanderings are a prime example. After the conquest their were seven cycles of sin, slavery, deliverance, God wanted them to be free but their sin caused them to be invaded and enslaved. There are many other examples. I never said that the practice of slavery was not real slavery, I said it must be taken in context.

I don't buy this line of argument because the law clearly permits owning slaves for life. Weather slaves were offered protections in terms of humane treatment to me is irrelevant, they are still slaves.

How the rich treat the poor is never irrelevant to New Testament theism. The treatment of other people, rich or poor, is something God will hold us accountable for. What is more the provisions for slavery in the Old Testament are just that, provisions. God also provided for peace, prosperity and freedom in the Old Testament. They choose to willfully abandon the covenant and fell to war, famine and slavery. There is a larger context here.

In our modern paradigm we generally do not tolerate the ownership of people as property regardless of how well they are treated or whether they have entered the deal willingly. Although some here in this thread seem to think it would be ok to practice slavery as long as we do it in accordance with biblical instruction.

I neither condone nor do I condemn the practice on it's face. I simply see it as the natural consequence of human choices that lead to the practice in the first place.

I accept (1) and (2), if we want to resolve the paradox we have to find our answer in (3) and ask ourselves why does God lower his moral standard and permit slavery? I don't have an answer, but I can't deny that slavery is permitted in scripture. It's written plain and clear.

The same reason he tolerated, without lowering his moral standards that are eternal, divorce:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (Matt. 19:8)
​

The New Testament is clear that true freedom is found in Christ, apart from Christ we are slaves to sin:

So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:36)

For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman. Conversely, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. (1 Corinthians 7:22)

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)
​

You are either going to be a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. The gospel doesn't condemn the practice of slavery, it's gives you a choice of which master you will serve. There is no third option.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Okay I'm trying to figure all this out and I realise I need to take a step back and remember how the Law was given to the Hebrews as part of the vassal covenant (similar to those of surrounding nations). The Law was not God's ideal or a proper reflection of Him. In fact the New Testament talks of the Law being a veil covering God's true nature (2 Corinthians 3:16). God's ideal was for a grant covenant (Exodus 19:3-6) but the people rejected this in favour of rules (Exodus 19:18-19; Deuteronomy 5:23-27; Exodus 19:20-25; Exodus 20:18-19). So God stooped down to their level and honoured their request, improving on the laws of the surrounding nations -- e.g. other nations required cutting off limbs for stealing, while Israel's response was to pay the debt back four-fold. The point is, God's ideal is for us to make choices from a pure heart of love, but this outcome was initially unattainable and instead He had to aid the Israelites in moving towards that goal. When we read the "word of God" we think it's word for word Who God is, His character, and all that He wants for everyone of all times. Wrong. Instead, He works with people of specific times and cultures to lead them towards His outcome of love. So while the Law of the Israelites was better to that of the surrounding nations it should not be equated with God Himself and what He desires.

I realise, from reading through this thread, that slavery is never good. I've sat on the fence weighing up how to think about it, and I've come to realise that God's heart must be for slavery to be completely outed, gone, abolished. Unfortunately it seems God had to give laws similar but improved to those of surrounding nations because the Hebrews were not ready for anything better. But God's ideal is John 15:12 "This is my command: Love each other as I have loved you" -- selfless, unconditional love. God is basically saying, "I'm not going to give a law that is impossible for you to keep, I'll give you a law that is near to where you are now, so that you can keep it. This law is not my ideal, but I see it best to come down to your level and give you an improved law to that of the surrounding nations so you can move in the direction of love". The Law then was a reflection of the time period.

Through this lens, much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy can be reduced to the culture. Then rather than judging God for giving the okay to terrible things, we can see He was leading them slowly out of the terrible things into a place where things like slavery could be completely removed.

p.s. Do you find this a plausible explanation for (3) "why does God lower his moral standard and permit slavery?" @Everybodyknows ?

 

[Par5]

But @Par5 don't you know that when the Bible says slavery it doesn't really mean 'slavery'. In fact the Hebrew word for slavery actually means 'friendly forever sleepover party'.

What!!! Why didn't you tell me this earlier? Silly old me thinking it was a really bad thing. Now I know that it's just a bit of fun, I wonder how much I could get for my wife?

 

[Everybodyknows]

Now I know that it's just a bit of fun, I wonder how much I could get for my wife?

Just post a pic on the wife auction forum and you'll find out.

 

[Par5]

If slavery is wrong, then it is wrong in any context. If we look at it morally we come to somewhat of a paradox that needs to be in some way resolved. Look at the following argument:

1. God is moral
2. Slavery is immoral
3. God permits slavery

When I use the term slavery I mean owning people as property and them being slaves for life. I'm not referring to indentured servitude where people sell their labor for a fixed period because of poverty or debt. The mosaic law permits both.

How do we resolve this paradox? Atheists will tend to deny (1) that God is moral. Christians will usually try to argue (2) that the slavery permitted in the Bible is somehow not real slavery, but rather is more like hired labor or that protections for the treatment of slaves are sufficient to justify the practice. I don't buy this line of argument because the law clearly permits owning slaves for life. Weather slaves were offered protections in terms of humane treatment to me is irrelevant, they are still slaves. In our modern paradigm we generally do not tolerate the ownership of people as property regardless of how well they are treated or whether they have entered the deal willingly. Although some here in this thread seem to think it would be ok to practice slavery as long as we do it in accordance with biblical instruction.

I accept (1) and (2), if we want to resolve the paradox we have to find our answer in (3) and ask ourselves why does God lower his moral standard and permit slavery? I don't have an answer, but I can't deny that slavery is permitted in scripture. It's written plain and clear.

I realize that for many Christians the slavery as practised by the Hebrews presents them with a bit of a quandary, but instead of admitting that it is problematic for them they tend to be rather disingenuous as they attempt to defend something I believe is indefensible
If I may say so I thought that you, as a Christian, presented your point of view with commendable honesty.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How many people do you think were actually executed?

Completely irrelevant to the point being made.

That point being: this god made sure to tell homosexuals that they are an abomination (for being created "wrong"?). While he said no such thing to slave owners or traders. Nope. Instead, he told them: ow slavery is totally okay, in fact... here's some rules and regulations on how to practice it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

One liners without content will not help your case.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Isn't this really just another Problem of Evil argument? If you're going to ask why God didn't abolish slavery, then you might as well ask why He didn't cure all disease, stop all wars, and make it so that people never bite their tongues.

For crying out loud Strathos...........

Right, right... because owning slaves is the same kind of "evil" as germs making you sick.

 

[mark kennedy]

Completely irrelevant to the point being made.

Nonsense, David exiled sodomites, he didn't have mass executions. It's always relevant whether or not someone dies and why.

That point being: this god made sure to tell homosexuals that they are an abomination (for being created "wrong"?).

I've never seen anything remotely resembling proof, or even a substantive argument that they were made that way. It's invariably someone just saying it. The New Testament is clear that same sex relations are due to vile passions:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Romans 1:26-27)​

Yea God made them that way, he turned them over to the vile passions that made them that way, as an act of judgment.

While he said no such thing to slave owners or traders. Nope. Instead, he told them: ow slavery is totally okay, in fact... here's some rules and regulations on how to practice it.

You can keep repeating that, in circles, endlessly. Yes, slavery was a reality in the Old Testament, you seem oblivious to the fact that God liberated 2 million slaves though. You want to moralize about the practice but not so interested in the cause and solution. They wanted to go back to Egypt, where they were slaves, don't you think there is a reason for that? If you want to talk about slavery in the Old Testament, or the New Testament for that matter, let's talk about it. But let's actually talk about it because it's not as simple as you are saying and I think you know that.

 

[mark kennedy]

One liners without content will not help your case.

Yea, being pedantic is very helpful is it? Especially when the pithy statement that there are, none so blind as those who will not see, is relevant to someone who is oblivious to the historical context of the practice.

 

[mark kennedy]

For crying out loud Strathos...........

Right, right... because owning slaves is the same kind of "evil" as germs making you sick.

Is divorce evil? Because God made provisions for that as well.

 

[Strathos]

For crying out loud Strathos...........

Right, right... because owning slaves is the same kind of "evil" as germs making you sick.

God could stop one as easily as the other. So yes, it is a valid comparison.

 

[lismore]

So the question is quite simply this. Do you consider it morally acceptable to consider another human being to be your property?

The form of 'slavery' in the bible is not of the same ilk as the slavery you're thinking of, for example in the USA, based on race. It's more akin to bond-service, a safety net for those falling off the edge of society and had a complicated set of rules to govern it, including the Jubilee year, when all slaves would be released.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The form of 'slavery' in the bible is not of the same ilk as the slavery you're thinking of, for example in the USA, based on race. It's more akin to bond-service, a safety net for those falling off the edge of society and had a complicated set of rules to govern it, including the Jubilee year, when all slaves would be released.

I think this fact is being purposefully ignored. People have supplied plenty of information to show the misnomer "slavery" for Hebrews was tantamount to work. That, it isn't American, Egyptian or any other type of slavery o e would first think of involving torture, rape and breeding.

One big deal is that Hebrew "slaves" were free after 7 years, and all others after 50. Real slaves are never released, and even people who work don't get their freedom after 50 years (retirement).

 

[Another Lazarus]

So, if slavery were truly a problem for him, if it really offended his ‘moral law’, he surely would have done something to stop it...!

If a slave found a good and kind hearted master he would surely be well fed and well sheltered so it depend on their master attitude,
WHY BLAME IT ON GOD ???

 

[Allandavid]

If a slave found a good and kind hearted master he would surely be well fed and well sheltered so it depend on their master attitude,
WHY BLAME IT ON GOD ???

For the most obvious of reasons.....because, according to you lot, he is the one who condoned and regulated the system...!

Not only that, he is the one with the powers to change it/ end it if he so wished...

 

[Everybodyknows]

The form of 'slavery' in the bible is not of the same ilk as the slavery you're thinking of, for example in the USA, based on race. It's more akin to bond-service, a safety net for those falling off the edge of society and had a complicated set of rules to govern it, including the Jubilee year, when all slaves would be released.

I think this fact is being purposefully ignored. People have supplied plenty of information to show the misnomer "slavery" for Hebrews was tantamount to work. That, it isn't American, Egyptian or any other type of slavery o e would first think of involving torture, rape and breeding.

One big deal is that Hebrew "slaves" were free after 7 years, and all others after 50. Real slaves are never released, and even people who work don't get their freedom after 50 years (retirement)

You guys haven't read your bibles. Leviticus 25 spells it out pretty clearly that foreign slaves are not released on jubilee, that they are indeed slaves for life. I've already showed this in #157:

Well if you read the Bible you will find it makes it pretty clear that is the case.

Leviticus 25
This entire chapter is in the context of the jubilee year. Verses 39-43 prohibit Hebrews enslaving each other, they can only sell themselves as hired labor and must be released at jubilee.

Then verses 44-46 instruct where one can get slaves, from surrounding nations, and they are property for life. No mention of release at jubilee.

Verses 47-55 instruct that if a Hebrew sells himself to a foreigner that he should be redeemed by his family. If they can't do this then he is to be released at jubilee.


39
"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.
40
He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.
41
Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers.
42
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
43
Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44
"`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45
You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46
You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
47
"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan,
48
he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him:
49
An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.
50
He and his buyer are to count the time from the year he sold himself up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for his release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired man for that number of years.
51
If many years remain, he must pay for his redemption a larger share of the price paid for him.
52
If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, he is to compute that and pay for his redemption accordingly.
53
He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly.
54
"`Even if he is not redeemed in any of these ways, he and his children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee,
55
for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

 

[PittBullMom]

I saw a video on CNN last night, people are being sold in Lybia right now. Disgusting.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nonsense, David exiled sodomites, he didn't have mass executions. It's always relevant whether or not someone dies and why.

Not to the point being made.

That point is that this god didn't see any issues with calling gays evil and worthy of punishment - whatever that punishment may be and wether or not they were actually carried out.

Yet, he didn't do the same for slavery. At all.

THAT is the point!

I've never seen anything remotely resembling proof, or even a substantive argument that they were made that way. It's invariably someone just saying it. The New Testament is clear that same sex relations are due to vile passions:

Still irrelevant.

The point is: god made sure to state that gay's are an abomination and should be punished.
Yet, slave trade and ownership is regulated and allowed.

You can keep repeating that, in circles, endlessly.

Because it's true.
In your god's eyes, gay's should be punished while slave traders/owners are okay.

Yes, slavery was a reality in the Old Testament, you seem oblivious to the fact that God liberated 2 million slaves though.

And then told them that it's okay to keep slaves.

You want to moralize about the practice but not so interested in the cause and solution.

I'm not saying anything, except that this god clearly has no issues with slavery.

They wanted to go back to Egypt, where they were slaves, don't you think there is a reason for that? If you want to talk about slavery in the Old Testament, or the New Testament for that matter, let's talk about it. But let's actually talk about it because it's not as simple as you are saying and I think you know that.

It absolutely is as simple as I am saying.
It's treating humans as private property that can be bought, sold and inherited as if they were a house, horse , car,...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yea, being pedantic is very helpful is it? Especially when the pithy statement that there are, none so blind as those who will not see, is relevant to someone who is oblivious to the historical context of the practice.

I don't care about the historical practice.

There is exactly zero reason why a god would have to accomodate for the vile habbits of humans.

In fact, he doesn't accomodate for every habbit this god considers to be "vile". He destroyed entire cities, nations, even the entire world once, for habbits he considered vile.

The problem here.... is that this god clearly doesn't consider slavery to be a vile habbit.