Does God condone slavery?

[Ike_87]

I've grown up a christian, but never really started reading the Bible until just recently. I came across Exodus 21, and I need help understanding it. In Exodus 21, it seems to suggest that God condones people owning slaves. Please help me make sense of this, because I feel like it's weighing on my faith. Does God condone slavery?


Exodus 21:7
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."

Exodus 21:20
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

In Exodus 21:20, it says that the master "must be punished". Why doesn't it say "must be put to death" like it does in Exodus 20:12? Is it just implied that they'll be put to death? Or are the servants worth less because they're the master's property? Please help me understand this.

 

[TR23]

Paul basically said we are to respect the world system as it exists at any given time or place.

This goes against everything we've come to believe in western society where we believe we should take everything into our own hands and fight to make the world right and equal in every way.

My impression of the bible is that god neither condones nor condemns many things such as a slavery, because at some level all world systems are considered unjust, unfair, unequal; So rather than getting tied up with telling christians to constantly war to make the world in god's imagine of how things should ideally be, we are basically told to just accept that there's going to be a certain level of injustice in this world and we've just got to deal with it as best we can keeping our eye on the promise of the next world.

So the fact is that slavery was a component of economic and justice systems of the day.
Later it was serfdom.
Today we have people calling capitalism a slave system in which people are enslaved to work to survive.
And then we have people who point out that communism as an alternative is nothing more than putting everyone in slavery to the state.
Socialism makes you a slave to the state for half the year through taxation and limited freedom in what you can do to start or run a business.

So it's really all a matter of perspective. We're all slaves in one sense or another to the world system around us. We're all forced by worldly authorities to give of ourselves involuntarily.
That is why I don't think god condemned slavery as it existed in the ancient world, being an essential component of the way of life for those civilizations, because god's laws were not going to recreate eden on earth, but they were going to make things more tolerable along the way.


However, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't move to abolish slavery as society advances: Remember it was the religious movements which pushed abolitionism in the US.
If the holy spirit leads us to get rid of some outdated ways of doing things, because we've reached a point where we can adopt more fair ways of doing things, then so be it.
Because the law of moses was something given for the Israelites, for a specific point in time, to achieve a specific goal of demonstrating they could not live in obediance, that they had need of a savior.
It was never intended to be the outline by which all humanity should govern themselves for all time, in which case we would still have slaves.
The underlying morality of the law is still there, but is manifest more perfectly in christ.

 

[wayseer]

I'll buy that.

 

[Slaol121]

Paul basically said we are to respect the world system as it exists at any given time or place.

This goes against everything we've come to believe in western society where we believe we should take everything into our own hands and fight to make the world right and equal in every way.

My impression of the bible is that god neither condones nor condemns many things such as a slavery, because at some level all world systems are considered unjust, unfair, unequal; So rather than getting tied up with telling christians to constantly war to make the world in god's imagine of how things should ideally be, we are basically told to just accept that there's going to be a certain level of injustice in this world and we've just got to deal with it as best we can keeping our eye on the promise of the next world.

So the fact is that slavery was a component of economic and justice systems of the day.
Later it was serfdom.
Today we have people calling capitalism a slave system in which people are enslaved to work to survive.
And then we have people who point out that communism as an alternative is nothing more than putting everyone in slavery to the state.
Socialism makes you a slave to the state for half the year through taxation and limited freedom in what you can do to start or run a business.

So it's really all a matter of perspective. We're all slaves in one sense or another to the world system around us. We're all forced by worldly authorities to give of ourselves involuntarily.
That is why I don't think god condemned slavery as it existed in the ancient world, being an essential component of the way of life for those civilizations, because god's laws were not going to recreate eden on earth, but they were going to make things more tolerable along the way.


However, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't move to abolish slavery as society advances: Remember it was the religious movements which pushed abolitionism in the US.
If the holy spirit leads us to get rid of some outdated ways of doing things, because we've reached a point where we can adopt more fair ways of doing things, then so be it.
Because the law of moses was something given for the Israelites, for a specific point in time, to achieve a specific goal of demonstrating they could not live in obediance, that they had need of a savior.
It was never intended to be the outline by which all humanity should govern themselves for all time, in which case we would still have slaves.
The underlying morality of the law is still there, but is manifest more perfectly in christ.

Great explanation - thanks

 

[Ike_87]

Paul basically said we are to respect the world system as it exists at any given time or place.

This goes against everything we've come to believe in western society where we believe we should take everything into our own hands and fight to make the world right and equal in every way.

My impression of the bible is that god neither condones nor condemns many things such as a slavery, because at some level all world systems are considered unjust, unfair, unequal; So rather than getting tied up with telling christians to constantly war to make the world in god's imagine of how things should ideally be, we are basically told to just accept that there's going to be a certain level of injustice in this world and we've just got to deal with it as best we can keeping our eye on the promise of the next world.

So the fact is that slavery was a component of economic and justice systems of the day.
Later it was serfdom.
Today we have people calling capitalism a slave system in which people are enslaved to work to survive.
And then we have people who point out that communism as an alternative is nothing more than putting everyone in slavery to the state.
Socialism makes you a slave to the state for half the year through taxation and limited freedom in what you can do to start or run a business.

So it's really all a matter of perspective. We're all slaves in one sense or another to the world system around us. We're all forced by worldly authorities to give of ourselves involuntarily.
That is why I don't think god condemned slavery as it existed in the ancient world, being an essential component of the way of life for those civilizations, because god's laws were not going to recreate eden on earth, but they were going to make things more tolerable along the way.


However, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't move to abolish slavery as society advances: Remember it was the religious movements which pushed abolitionism in the US.
If the holy spirit leads us to get rid of some outdated ways of doing things, because we've reached a point where we can adopt more fair ways of doing things, then so be it.
Because the law of moses was something given for the Israelites, for a specific point in time, to achieve a specific goal of demonstrating they could not live in obediance, that they had need of a savior.
It was never intended to be the outline by which all humanity should govern themselves for all time, in which case we would still have slaves.
The underlying morality of the law is still there, but is manifest more perfectly in christ.

Thank you for taking the time to write this. I'm grateful for your response to my post. I'm still left with some thoughts which need answered, though.

My first thought is in response to what you wrote about how God's intention is not to make Christians constantly at war with their society to try and create God's ideal world. I have to admit that I have a hard time accepting this, because I've always thought that God's rules were the ideal by which we are supposed to live. Or is it only the rules which Jesus himself teaches which are meant to be the ideal ones? I have a hard time understanding why He wants us just to accept the economic system we're under even if it goes against what He teaches us is moral.

Another thought I had has to do with comparing slavery to an economic system. Having a single master who has dominion over you is much more intimate than being a part of a system where your labors are exploited for others' monetary gain. The way I see it, slavery is a relationship between two people, while an economic system is the way a group of people do business. A slave has his master right there to dictate his every action, while us capitalists enjoy many of our freedoms. We still get to decide where we want to live, who we marry, how many kids we have, etc.. Also Our bosses can't beat us with rods and get away with it if we don't die within two days of it. (Exodus 20:21) I agree that God wouldn't want us to destroy our own economic system, but I think he'd pass some judgment on the human relationships within that system when they go against what Jesus later teaches.

Thanks for your time reading this, and thanks again for your response.

 

[TR23]

Christ's teachings are indeed the ideal we live by, but the change takes place internally in how we relate to others.
And if enough Christians together are living by Christ's commandments, guided by the Holy Spirit, then you will start to see society as a whole reflect a more ideal and just world (Although it will never result in perfection, because we won't live in a perfect world until Christ returns); which is the point where a Christian society looks around and says "you know this slavery thing just doesn't feel right, I think we should get rid of it."

The misconception would be believing that the law of Moses, which did not condemn slavery, represented the ideal by which the world was to live by.
It was a law given to a specific people, for a specific period of time, to serve a specific purpose in the plan of salvation.

Slavery at the time was a key part of the justice system, not just the economic system.
If you had to pay restitution to someone, but had no means, then you become enslaved to them for a period to work off that debt.
The law of Moses was actually a means of making what was at the time a necessary institution of order be more humane and fair, by laying out standards of behavior in addition to setting timeframes in which slaves were to be freed.
If the American south had adhered to the biblical guidelines of slavery, then the institution never would have lasted long as each generation kept being freed (During the Jubliee, every 50 years, all slaves are freed and all debts are forgiven). Nor would they have been allowed to beat and abuse their slaves.
You then begin to see, in that context, how the law of moses was actually a system that represented an improvement over the world system at the time, being more fair and just than it otherwise would be.

[Having a single master who has dominion over you is much more intimate than being a part of a system where your labors are exploited for others' monetary gain.

It's really a matter of perspective, because you'll see some socialists/communists who try to describe capitalism in slavery terms (a system where a person is being exploited for monetary gain and supposedly has no say in the matter).
They will point to "sweat shops" of the past, or in other parts of the world, and complain that it is little more than a system of "modern day slavery'.

The point being: No world system is ever going to be viewed as 100% fair and just from a purist's perspective. Certainly no system we can devise here on earth will ever function according to God's perfect standards of justice and righteousness. Standards keep trying to evolve to a more ideal world, but it's never going to happen until Christ returns. Therefore, we can't expect that God's laws to Moses are intended to reflect an ideal system of law that the entire world is to adhere to for all time.
An example of the law being a compromise for the condition of man, and not a reflection of God's absolutely perfect will for us, would be in the fact that God originally intended for there to be no divorce, but recognizing the hardness of men's hearts allowed it to them as a necessity in some cases.

If god were to have given the Israelites a law that represented the ideal purity of eden on earth, then they would have been utterly incapable of adhering to it, and they would have been unable to thrive in the world system as it existed.
God gave them a set of standards that were relevant to their context.

And I suspect that if God were to speak to us today, he would give us similar guidance in the sense that he would take into account the realities of the world system we live in and tell us how we can make the best of it in a way that is more fair and just than otherwise would be expected.
Today he does do this through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but it only begins to be reflected in society when a majority of the population is being equally guided.

That, I believe, is the secret to why the western world began to thrive ahead of everyone else after the protestant reformation, when the word of God became more known to the populace at large.

 

[Ike_87]

Thank you for writing another reply. You bring up some good points for why God would tolerate people owning other people. However, looking through Exodus 21 some more, I'm still left with some questions, and I'll list them.

1. Exodus 21:28-32
28 “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.

To me, this suggests that a slave's life itself had less value than others' lives. If the notoriously dangerous bull killed a man or woman, the owner must either be put to death or pay whatever was demanded of him. However, if the bull just kills a slave, then there's no risk of death for the owner, and he'll never have to pay more than 30 shekels of silver. Aren't we all created equal under God? Why would God give us a rule where the penalty for killing a person of low class is less severe than killing a person of higher class?

 

[TR23]

The law is a restitution model designed for the stable function of the hebrew society, and is not necessarily a representation of moral absolutes.

If your ox kills a citizen due to your gross negligence, then the penalty is death because a person cannot be replaced; But there is an exception if the family wishes to set a ransom price as restitution for the crime, sparing the offender's life.

Slaves had a set economic value in the law, so the loss to the owner is not something irreplaceable or of undefined value, but is something of set value that can be accounted for and repaid.

 

[Ike_87]

Slaves had a set economic value in the law, so the loss to the owner is not something irreplaceable or of undefined value, but is something of set value that can be accounted for and repaid.

A slave's life cannot be replaced, either. That slave might have a family just like anybody else.

 

[TR23]

If he's a slave for debt then the debt is owed to the owner, not to the family he belongs to.
Likely the slave isn't even hebrew, but is a canaanite or gentile.

 

[Ike_87]

But what about the cases where that person is a slave because they were born into slavery? Exodus 21:2 tells us that if a master gave his slave a wife, and they have children, then the wife and children belong to the master when the slave goes free. These children, who had no debt to settle, were born into slavery, and they were born with a fixed price of what their life was worth. From what I understand, Exodus suggests that if one of these kids were killed out of negligence, the mother wouldn't be able to seek justice like other mothers. The guilty party would simply pay the 30 shekels of silver to the owner of the ruined property, and that's that. I have a hard time understanding why God (even though he has to accept slavery, for the time being) wouldn't make some laws which kept the value of human life equal for everyone. It seems like that negligent person, who let his bull kill people, shouldn't be able to buy his life back in any circumstance.

Also, I don't know why it matters whether the slave is a Hebrew, Canaanite, or Gentile. Could you please explain that further?

 

[TR23]

Slaves were freed every 50 years.

The law's purpose is not to place a moral value on people, or to reflect moral absolutes. It was a practical law that was an improvement over the cultures around them.

The isrealite culture would not have considered it fair that a man should suffer the death penalty for letting a slave get killed, when restitution could be made to the owner for a set price.
A slave's family wasn't entitled to restitution for his death because he was owned by someone else.

 

[mark46]

There are lots of instances of God condoning slavery, starting with the sons of Noah, where Ham's decendents were to servants.

However, I agree with your post. Do you take the same view with regard to position of women and toward the instituation of marriage. Is it cultural norms that are critical or are these dogmatic issues where slavery is not?

Paul basically said we are to respect the world system as it exists at any given time or place.

This goes against everything we've come to believe in western society where we believe we should take everything into our own hands and fight to make the world right and equal in every way.

My impression of the bible is that god neither condones nor condemns many things such as a slavery, because at some level all world systems are considered unjust, unfair, unequal; So rather than getting tied up with telling christians to constantly war to make the world in god's imagine of how things should ideally be, we are basically told to just accept that there's going to be a certain level of injustice in this world and we've just got to deal with it as best we can keeping our eye on the promise of the next world.

So the fact is that slavery was a component of economic and justice systems of the day.
Later it was serfdom.
Today we have people calling capitalism a slave system in which people are enslaved to work to survive.
And then we have people who point out that communism as an alternative is nothing more than putting everyone in slavery to the state.
Socialism makes you a slave to the state for half the year through taxation and limited freedom in what you can do to start or run a business.

So it's really all a matter of perspective. We're all slaves in one sense or another to the world system around us. We're all forced by worldly authorities to give of ourselves involuntarily.
That is why I don't think god condemned slavery as it existed in the ancient world, being an essential component of the way of life for those civilizations, because god's laws were not going to recreate eden on earth, but they were going to make things more tolerable along the way.


However, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't move to abolish slavery as society advances: Remember it was the religious movements which pushed abolitionism in the US.
If the holy spirit leads us to get rid of some outdated ways of doing things, because we've reached a point where we can adopt more fair ways of doing things, then so be it.
Because the law of moses was something given for the Israelites, for a specific point in time, to achieve a specific goal of demonstrating they could not live in obediance, that they had need of a savior.
It was never intended to be the outline by which all humanity should govern themselves for all time, in which case we would still have slaves.
The underlying morality of the law is still there, but is manifest more perfectly in christ.

 

[theFijian]

Does God condone slavery?

What do you think the word 'slavery' implies?

 

[Ike_87]

I think the word "slavery" implies when one person has intimate dominion over another person.

 

[Ike_87]

Slaves were freed every 50 years.

The law's purpose is not to place a moral value on people, or to reflect moral absolutes. It was a practical law that was an improvement over the cultures around them.

The isrealite culture would not have considered it fair that a man should suffer the death penalty for letting a slave get killed, when restitution could be made to the owner for a set price.
A slave's family wasn't entitled to restitution for his death because he was owned by someone else.

50 years is an enormous amount of time to be someone's property. It's also just enough time to get the best years of work out of someone before they start becoming dependent on you.

I understand where you're coming from when you say that the law wasn't meant to place value on people or to set a high moral standard. However, I don't understand why God would cater to the immorality of a society just because they (and surrounding cultures) viewed slaves as property instead of people.

By making a law about how to 'properly' keep slaves, God is making a moral statement about slavery. In a way, he's saying it's "ok". It's just like when parents don't want to teach their kids about "safe sex" because in teaching them it you are also condoning it. If a parent doesn't want their kids to have sex at an early age, they're not going to teach them "safe sex" and say, "oh well, they're going to do it any way." Instead, they'd teach them abstinence. Why would God say, "oh well, they're going to do it any way." when it comes to slavery?

 

[TR23]

You may as well try to ask why god would condone the immorality of divorce by making an exception for it under limited circumstances.
Jesus tells us that it was never god's perfect will that we ever need to divorce. But recognizing the hardness of men's hearts, he knew it was necessary to give them some leeway.

It was a practical law that applied to the hebrews to improve their condition, but was never intended to be representative of moral absolutes because only christ could embody and keep those moral absolutes.
(for the israelites, under the law, it was sufficient to not commit the physical act of adultery - But christ tells us that according to the moral absolute of god's law, that merely looking at a women with evil intent is just as bad).

Giving people a means of divorce under the law should not be taken as an endorsement of divorce. God may be longsuffering and forgiving with sin, but that doesn't mean he endorses it.

From a moral absolutist position, the one jesus teaches, if we loved our neighbors then we wouldn't seek to enslave them.
But from a law perspective, slaves were an essential part of the justice and economic system of the time - I imagine that 3000 years ago you could no more tell the israelites to do without slavery than you could today tell the USA to do without foreign sweatshop labor or immigrant labor (Both of which I've seen people try to argue is modern day slavery). So, if you try to analyze the law from a position of moral absolutes, instead of pragmatism, you're never going to be satisified and you're going to come away wondering why god didn't give them a perfect absolute standard to live by (Because they couldn't even keep the law they did have, let alone heavenly standards of living).

 

[theFijian]

I think the word "slavery" implies when one person has intimate dominion over another person.

If that's your definition then it's not just God who condones slavery, it is rife throughout all societies and throughout all history, by that definition children are slaves of their parents. I'm afraid your definition is too broad and imprecise to be of meaningful use if you want to talk about about slavery in relation to the Bible.

 

[Ike_87]

You may as well try to ask why god would condone the immorality of divorce by making an exception for it under limited circumstances.
Jesus tells us that it was never god's perfect will that we ever need to divorce. But recognizing the hardness of men's hearts, he knew it was necessary to give them some leeway.

It was a practical law that applied to the hebrews to improve their condition, but was never intended to be representative of moral absolutes because only christ could embody and keep those moral absolutes.
(for the israelites, under the law, it was sufficient to not commit the physical act of adultery - But christ tells us that according to the moral absolute of god's law, that merely looking at a women with evil intent is just as bad).

Giving people a means of divorce under the law should not be taken as an endorsement of divorce. God may be longsuffering and forgiving with sin, but that doesn't mean he endorses it.

From a moral absolutist position, the one jesus teaches, if we loved our neighbors then we wouldn't seek to enslave them.
But from a law perspective, slaves were an essential part of the justice and economic system of the time - I imagine that 3000 years ago you could no more tell the israelites to do without slavery than you could today tell the USA to do without foreign sweatshop labor or immigrant labor (Both of which I've seen people try to argue is modern day slavery). So, if you try to analyze the law from a position of moral absolutes, instead of pragmatism, you're never going to be satisified and you're going to come away wondering why god didn't give them a perfect absolute standard to live by (Because they couldn't even keep the law they did have, let alone heavenly standards of living).

If God considers divorce immoral, why would he even bother making exceptions to the no divorce rule? By making exceptions, he's saying that sometimes divorce isn't immoral.

I agree that, from what Jesus teaches us, we shouldn't seek to enslave anyone. That's why I have a hard time picturing God giving his people any leeway in keeping slaves. And I don't think God would find it an impossible task to influence his people to change their culture and get rid of slavery. U.S.A. definitely wouldn't be as financially prosperous as we have been if it wasn't for things like sweat shops. Everyone (especially followers of Christ) should be making efforts to make sure that workers in sweat shops get paid what we would like to be paid doing that work. But that would mean that we would have to pay a lot more for our goods, and we're just not willing to let that happen. And not a lot of people (especially my christian parents) want to see "our money" going to other countries. But if we are to love others as we do ourselves, then we would be giving other countries more money, trying to make them financial equals to ourselves. And we would be doing so with a happy heart. I don't think God would condone our lavish lifestyles.

Another thought that came to me is, if God's rules in the old testament are so specific to the time period (and they don't represent high moral standards) why do we look to the old testament for rules on how to live our lives?

 

[Ike_87]

I'm afraid your definition is too broad and imprecise to be of meaningful use if you want to talk about about slavery in relation to the Bible.

You're right, I'll try to make it more specific. By slavery, I mean when one person directly owns another person, as if they were property, and can dictate everything that person does. Similar to how we own dogs, except most of us wouldn't force our dogs to labor for us. Also, I recognize that the slaves in the Bible weren't necessarily slaves for life.