Slavery in the OT

[lawtonfogle]

The following verses actually tell us the differences.

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money." - Exodus 21:7-11

Makes sense when you consider the position of women in that society in relation to marriage and all that. Different people had different protections.

It doesn't explain the difference when the girl was NOT bought as a sex slave (well, by our modern definition of sex slave anyways). In Deut, as previously pointed out, she was to be let free, in Exodus, she wasn't. The only difference I see is that in Deut, she sells herself, in Exodus, she is sold by the family. Which actually works out with the whole forced marriage thing, being the girl wouldn't be able to sell herself into marriage as her virginity belonged to her father. So the father selling her could sell her virginity, while the girl could not sell her own virginity.

But none the less, the idea God was ok with child marriage is still a bit creepy, even if we pretend kids those days were really mature, we pretend all fathers made sure their little girls were ok with it, and we pretend it was rare (it even happened during Jesus' time, much less the centuries before then, but by Jesus' time, it was definitely the exception).

 

[Sketcher]

But it wouldn't budge on the adultery.

Interesting that adultery/homosexuality/cursing your parents is worse than slavery/divorce/rape (of a non-married woman, and thus not adultery)/statutory rape.

In general, I would have put that list backwards, with rape/slavery worse than adultery/homosexuality and so on.

I wouldn't say it's worse.

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. " - James 2:10-11

This is a common Jewish teaching. The Law of Moses is a package deal. You break one command, you break the whole covenant. Severity of punishment may vary for one deed or another, but it's all unacceptable to God - sometimes the better thing to do was to kill the offender, sometimes it was to force him to make a restorative payment.

 

[drich0150]

Slavery is wrong.

Only By todays pop culture standards.

Without any true standards (God's law) I wonder if you would have taken the same stance if you lived a few hundred years ago and your family's lively hood was based off of the work of slaves. If all you had and all you knew was provided to you by the works of slavery would you give up a socially acceptable upper class lifestyle, and live in complete poverty, for (at the time) is a non issue morality stance?

It's kinda like knowing the effects of fossil fuels have on the environment and yet you find it acceptable to continue to take advantage of all that fossil fuels provide. Electricity, store bought, food, supplies, cloths, medical treatment, housing, transportation, etc, etc.. If all they say about global climate change is correct, then you are actively contributing to the destruction of the entire planet and potentially countless future generations. Yet, you don't seem to see this as a creditable issue. However what does seem to be an issue is a personal sense of righteousness you have seemingly found from a you tube video. On a subject that has little to no bearing in a western country in or out of the religious community.

So again, if your sense of "morality" comes from whatever popular culture teaches, and if you did indeed live in a time of slavery and you and your family greatly benefited from slavery, would you give it up just because it is the "right thing to do?"

Before you say yes know that there is a 90% chance that you are using power from an oil or coal fired power plant to write your response, and even if you can somehow generate your own power all that you have (including your computer or your friends computer) was brought to you by Was made or packaged in some sort of a factory and brought to you by Ship, train, and/or truck. So my question is Why haven't you gone off the grid to save the planet, and billions of potential lives???

If you read past the slavery laws in the OT you will find Mat 7:
Judging Others

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

When you base your morality on whatever the mob says is moral then what's to stop you from being apart of the next Reich? (The leaders of the 3rd Reich started out condemning slavery too..)

 

[lawtonfogle]

I wouldn't say it's worse.

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. " - James 2:10-11

They are all bad in they pull you from God, but God's punishment this side of the veil differs. The first group were punished by death, the latter was punished to varying degrees, from fines to no punishment at all. Alos, remember, slavery, stat. rape, and (possibly, I'm not 100% sure here) rape weren't actually breaking the law.

There was no part of the law that said to not have slave and there was no point of the law that had anything like our understanding of age of consent. So neither of those were even breaking the law.

This is a common Jewish teaching. The Law of Moses is a package deal. You break one command, you break the whole covenant. Severity of punishment may vary for one deed or another, but it's all unacceptable to God - sometimes the better thing to do was to kill the offender, sometimes it was to force him to make a restorative payment.

But slavery and stat. rape were not breaking any portion of the law.

Selling your daughter in a child marriage? Not breaking any part of the law.

Even the cases of divorce being allowed is a difficult one to decide if you were actually breaking the law, because God had allowed it, irregardless of why He did such.

 

[Sketcher]

They are all bad in they pull you from God, but God's punishment this side of the veil differs. The first group were punished by death, the latter was punished to varying degrees, from fines to no punishment at all. Alos, remember, slavery, stat. rape, and (possibly, I'm not 100% sure here) rape weren't actually breaking the law.

There was no part of the law that said to not have slave and there was no point of the law that had anything like our understanding of age of consent. So neither of those were even breaking the law.

But slavery and stat. rape were not breaking any portion of the law.

Selling your daughter in a child marriage? Not breaking any part of the law.

Even the cases of divorce being allowed is a difficult one to decide if you were actually breaking the law, because God had allowed it, irregardless of why He did such.

Sexual assault is never permitted under the law, first of all.

Statutory rape AFAIK isn't what we would consider it because Jews become "adults" at 13 (Bar and Bat Mitzvah). And daughters, according to Jewish tradition, all have a say in whether they're going to marry a man or not. So while daughters were given in marriage, it wasn't this medieval notion of the daughter being given to this toad of a man while she would rather have someone else - at least if the father was acting according to tradition. Arranged Marriages? - Q & A

 

[wayseer]

Don't confuse science and scientist. Science is amoral, not moral, and thus it cannot claim the moral high ground, but any problems it causes is because of how humans use it.

That's a bit like blaming fire for creating bushfires.

It is also a handy argument to deny that scientists engage in science - not robots.

 

[beforHim]

Again and again, I'll keep recommending this article: http://christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html It clears up pretty much all misunderstandings.

 

[seekthelord]

hi ciaphas,
Have not much time so apologies for not reading other posts which may cover this.
Slavery was not wrong in either the New testament or Old Testament.
Yahweh put in place national rules for slavery.
Yahweh put in place rightful national ways to have slaves while He was ruler.
Peter, the apostle speaks Yahweh's words and instructions covering slaves and how they should act differently in their situation. This was erspecially helpful for slaves belonging to other nations apart from Israel.
Slavery was made an honorable profession by god's rules in Israel.
Even Israelite slaves of Israelites had their human rights under Yahweh's law.
Where has mankind gone wrong departing from true Judaism ?

 

[Bessica]

In any case, slavery was not part of God's original plan for mankind. The Law of Moses made several compromises with regional culture (by permitting divorce, slavery, and avengers of blood).

Where do we read that slavery was a compromise with regional culture? Even if it did. This compromises the morality of the Bible

 

[lawtonfogle]

Sexual assault is never permitted under the law, first of all.

There are a number of forms of sexual crimes which the Bible makes no mention of being wrong.

Statutory rape AFAIK isn't what we would consider it because Jews become "adults" at 13 (Bar and Bat Mitzvah).

Yet today, if you caught some 30 year old in a relation with a 13 year old, would you not find that horrible? Are you saying that finding a 13 year old in a relation with a 30 year old that much more horrible than finding a 21 year old in a relation with a 30 year old is all due to cultural relativism?

And daughters, according to Jewish tradition, all have a say in whether they're going to marry a man or not. So while daughters were given in marriage, it wasn't this medieval notion of the daughter being given to this toad of a man while she would rather have someone else - at least if the father was acting according to tradition. Arranged Marriages? - Q & A

That resource outright ignores two different kinds of marriage in the Bible.

The first is that resulting from rape of a virgin, which resulted in the man being required to marry the virgin. The father got to say no, but here lies two problems. One, nothing ever stated the father must ask the daughter (a good father would ask, but God does not require it), and two, if the father says no marriage, the man still gets off with only a fine (even if it is a hefty fine, it is still only a fine). This was also the 'punishment' for child rape.

Secondly, in Exodus 21, it is clear the parents sell the daughter into slavery, then her master, not her father, gets to say who she marries. Once again, the Bible never requires her consent (once again, you would think a good master would get it, but God does not require it).

Here, let me quote something from the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud).

The Talmud (Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד talmūd "instruction, learning", from a root lmd "teach, study") is a central text of mainstream Judaism, in the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history.

This is from Niddah 44, though I'm not 100% certain how the Talmud is organized, any time you go to a collection of it, you can normally find some link which ends in niddah_##, where those numbers go up to 64 (maybe even higher). All you have to do normally is change it to 44 to get and then just use you browsers search function, and you will find the below.

Not for the faint at heart.

A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED23 BY INTERCOURSE

[foot note 23]
Subject to her father's approval.

Here is one from niddah 64 I stumbled upon while looking up the above.

IF A YOUNG GIRL, WHOSE AGE OF MENSTRUATION10 HAS NOT ARRIVED, MARRIED, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE IS ALLOWED11 FOUR NIGHTS,12 AND BETH HILLEL RULED: UNTIL THE WOUND IS HEALED.13

[footnotes 10-13]
Lit., 'her time to see'.

For marital intercourse.

Though blood appeared, it is assumed to be that of injured virginity which, unlike menstrual blood, is clean.

This is explained in the Gemara infra.

Ok, now, it only gets worse here.

The Gemara is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is much quoted in other rabbinic literature.

Niddah 44

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old. What is the practical difference between them? — The school of R Jannai replied: The practical difference between them is the day preceding the first day of the fourth year.35 R. Johanan, however, replied: The practical difference between them is the rule that thirty days of a year are counted as the full year.36
An objection was raised: A girl of the age of three years and even one of the age of two years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old.

And I'll just save your eyes from having to read the discussion in Niddah 64 Gemara which discusses how long a child has to heal after having sex.

So yeah... And here I thought Muslims were the ones well known for child marriage and I thought Muhammad was pretty bad for marrying a 6 year old, but that is twice the age of what is allowed here.


Now, perhaps there is some other portion of the text that I haven't found which over turns the above, but even here there are three problems.

1. Why doesn't anyone point out that it has been overturned. A little link on the side would be appreciated.
2. For some amount of time, likely centuries, these were still the laws.
3. Nothing in the Old Testament says there is anything wrong with these.


Well, all this aside, my world religions class next semester just got a whole lot more interesting. Considering a good portion of the time will be spent on Islam and Judaism...

 

[A_maize]

Where do we read that slavery was a compromise with regional culture? Even if it did. This compromises the morality of the Bible

It never says that in the Old Testament, well, because even today no one writes laws that say we're doing this only because people want it, and we know its wrong.

Secondly, we go by the fact that Jesus said divorce itself was a compromise to the 'hardened hearts of men' and that Moses created the law as a compromise. (Matthew 19:8)

Now back then, abandoning/divorcing a woman, in THAT society was basically condemning her to death. A brutal, brutal position. Slavery was no different. It is wrong, and should have never happened. Yet Moses, through the evil hearts of men, had to compromise, and look what happened. Suffering, hardships, and even today people are turned away by the fact that Moses(not God) allowed slavery.

The Old Testament was not meant as a complete book on ethics, else people would also ask why there weren't any clauses about capital punishment, wars, etc etc. It shows what devastating effects our wrongdoings(or sins) could have on our personal lives, our friends, as well as society, slavery and divorce being the most prominent ones.

I hope this helped a bit.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It never says that in the Old Testament, well, because even today no one writes laws that say we're doing this only because people want it, and we know its wrong.

Secondly, we go by the fact that Jesus said divorce itself was a compromise to the 'hardened hearts of men' and that Moses created the law as a compromise. (Matthew 19:8)

Now back then, abandoning/divorcing a woman, in THAT society was basically condemning her to death. A brutal, brutal position. Slavery was no different. It is wrong, and should have never happened. Yet Moses, through the evil hearts of men, had to compromise, and look what happened. Suffering, hardships, and even today people are turned away by the fact that Moses(not God) allowed slavery.

The Old Testament was not meant as a complete book on ethics, else people would also ask why there weren't any clauses about capital punishment, wars, etc etc. It shows what devastating effects our wrongdoings(or sins) could have on our personal lives, our friends, as well as society, slavery and divorce being the most prominent ones.

I hope this helped a bit.

Jesus said divorce was a compromise. Where did Jesus say slavery was a compromise? What you are doing is imposing your own person moral system (slavery is bad) onto the Bible, you are leaning on your own understanding of right and wrong. From there, you are then declaring God cannot allow what you have chosen is wrong, thus you come up with an excuse to try to explain it. You can do that, but you just need to recognize that is what you are doing.

Anyways, if we want to blame someone for the Canaanites being slaves to the Israelites, we should blame Noah, not Moses, when he curses the descendants of Ham (the father of the Canaanites) to be slaves to the descendants of Ham's brothers. Of course, it was in the hands of God to see this curse through.

 

[A_maize]

Jesus said divorce was a compromise. Where did Jesus say slavery was a compromise? What you are doing is imposing your own person moral system (slavery is bad) onto the Bible, you are leaning on your own understanding of right and wrong. From there, you are then declaring God cannot allow what you have chosen is wrong, thus you come up with an excuse to try to explain it. You can do that, but you just need to recognize that is what you are doing.

Anyways, if we want to blame someone for the Canaanites being slaves to the Israelites, we should blame Noah, not Moses, when he curses the descendants of Ham (the father of the Canaanites) to be slaves to the descendants of Ham's brothers. Of course, it was in the hands of God to see this curse through.

I may be imposing my own personal moral system, but I'm also taking into account God and what he has done for me, as well as for all of us, along with his other commands. If you decide otherwise, than yeah that's your opinion, and I respect it.

And I'm not sure where in the Bible God saw the 'curse' through to the Canaanites, either. I thought it was just Noah being a drunken man [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off legitimately.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I may be imposing my own personal moral system, but I'm also taking into account God and what he has done for me, as well as for all of us, along with his other commands. If you decide otherwise, than yeah that's your opinion, and I respect it.

And I'm not sure where in the Bible God saw the 'curse' through to the Canaanites, either. I thought it was just Noah being a drunken man [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off legitimately.

Well, I personally would that that would have occurred when the Israelites broke into Canaan, killing and enslaving many cities. But that is just my opinion, as you said.

 

[A_maize]

Well, I personally would that that would have occurred when the Israelites broke into Canaan, killing and enslaving many cities. But that is just my opinion, as you said.

Sorry for sounding like a tool. But anyway, you're saying that them doing that is the fulfillment of the curse????? Isn't that kinda similar to the other guy saying that the devastation in Louisiana was because of the voodoo over their, or some cleric in Australia saying an earthquake was caused because of women's short skirts?

 

[Sketcher]

Where do we read that slavery was a compromise with regional culture? Even if it did. This compromises the morality of the Bible

Well, does Matthew 19:3-9 compromise the morality of the Bible? The Bible is 66 books. The books of the Law are only four of them. Jesus went back to the creation account to explain his stance which was at odds with the tradition of a certain sect of Jews, which was based on other verses. If Jesus did not compromise the morality of the Bible when he taught against this and other traditions, then I don't see how going back to the beginning and teaching that slavery wasn't part of the original plan would be such a compromise either.

Scripture teaches us that slaves and masters are equal before the Lord (Galatians 3:28), and it never shows God instituting slavery. It shows God instituting marriage (Genesis 2:23-24), and work (Genesis 2:15), and the human diet (Genesis 9:3) and certain requirements for justice (Genesis 9:6). But never slavery. It records God rolling with it, and other human institutions such as war and national borders and so forth, but not instituting it. Therefore, it was not part of God's original plan.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Sorry for sounding like a tool. But anyway, you're saying that them doing that is the fulfillment of the curse????? Isn't that kinda similar to the other guy saying that the devastation in Louisiana was because of the voodoo over their, or some cleric in Australia saying an earthquake was caused because of women's short skirts?

Except, last I checked, earth quakes and natural disasters are separate from what happened when the descendants of one brother attack the descendants of another brother. You are comparing natural events to man chosen events, two very different things.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Scripture teaches us that slaves and masters are equal before the Lord (Galatians 3:28),

This has nothing to do if God allowed slavery or not. Everyone is equal before God as a sinner.

and it never shows God instituting slavery. It shows God instituting marriage (Genesis 2:23-24), and work (Genesis 2:15), and the human diet (Genesis 9:3) and certain requirements for justice (Genesis 9:6). But never slavery. It records God rolling with it, and other human institutions such as war and national borders and so forth, but not instituting it. Therefore, it was not part of God's original plan.

If God wasn't willing to role with adultery, but was willing to role with slavery, that should tell you something right there.

But you are still wrong, because in Exodus 21, God clearly sets up slavery. He had not need to before then because the nation was not yet big enough, before Egypt, they were just one growing family, after Egypt, you had a small nation, and thus God had to set down all the laws.

Exodus 21:1 is very much God saying "These are the laws you shall give the Isrealites". This section follows directly after the ten commandments.

The very next thing God does after saying "These are the laws you shall give the Isrealites" is God setting up what happens if you choose to engage in slavery. He never commands it, but He very much sets up a system that allows it. Exodus 21:2-11 set up slavery (granted, it was only servitude for the males, but it was slavery for the females).

God allowed a child to be sold by her parents as a sex slave, to be married to some older male (be it her new master or someone the master picks), yet He wouldn't allow adultery?

 

[Sketcher]

There are a number of forms of sexual crimes which the Bible makes no mention of being wrong.

Such as?

Besides, I would be very careful about saying what this means. God gave a narrow definition of what is sexually acceptable in Genesis 2:24. One man, one woman, within the bonds of marriage. They were both adults. They were husband and wife. It was consensual. That's God's will for sex. Any deviation from that is sin.

Yet today, if you caught some 30 year old in a relation with a 13 year old, would you not find that horrible? Are you saying that finding a 13 year old in a relation with a 30 year old that much more horrible than finding a 21 year old in a relation with a 30 year old is all due to cultural relativism?

A 13-year old in this culture isn't a functioning adult. Becoming a functioning adult isn't strictly a matter of age, but of maturity.

That resource outright ignores two different kinds of marriage in the Bible.

The first is that resulting from rape of a virgin, which resulted in the man being required to marry the virgin. The father got to say no, but here lies two problems. One, nothing ever stated the father must ask the daughter (a good father would ask, but God does not require it), and two, if the father says no marriage, the man still gets off with only a fine (even if it is a hefty fine, it is still only a fine). This was also the 'punishment' for child rape.

But you're not looking at how Jews, who consider this law binding upon themselves, consider it. I'm not talking about liberal Reform Jews either, I'm talking about opinions that are hundreds of years old at the newest.

Secondly, in Exodus 21, it is clear the parents sell the daughter into slavery, then her master, not her father, gets to say who she marries. Once again, the Bible never requires her consent (once again, you would think a good master would get it, but God does not require it).

No. When a Hebrew man bought a Hebrew girl as a slave, that was considered a betrothal. She was his slave, but if she had not obtained her freedom by puberty, he was obliged to either marry her, give her to his son, let her father redeem her, or let her go free without demanding any compensation from her. He couldn't sell her has a "wife" to just anybody. He'd broken faith with the original terms of the contract.

Here, let me quote something from the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud).


This is from Niddah 44, though I'm not 100% certain how the Talmud is organized, any time you go to a collection of it, you can normally find some link which ends in niddah_##, where those numbers go up to 64 (maybe even higher). All you have to do normally is change it to 44 to get and then just use you browsers search function, and you will find the below.

Not for the faint at heart.




Here is one from niddah 64 I stumbled upon while looking up the above.


Ok, now, it only gets worse here.



Niddah 44


And I'll just save your eyes from having to read the discussion in Niddah 64 Gemara which discusses how long a child has to heal after having sex.

So yeah... And here I thought Muslims were the ones well known for child marriage and I thought Muhammad was pretty bad for marrying a 6 year old, but that is twice the age of what is allowed here.

That's a misinterpretation. Violating a minor is not condoned in any way in Judaism - rather, if a girl had been violated as a minor, the Talmud gives instructions as to what is to happen next. Violating a minor is a particularly nefarious form of sex outside of marriage, which the law condemns. Full answer here.

 

[Sketcher]

This has nothing to do if God allowed slavery or not. Everyone is equal before God as a sinner.

If everyone is equal before God, then that implies that slavery is injustice to him.

If God wasn't willing to role with adultery, but was willing to role with slavery, that should tell you something right there.

Since when have entire economies been founded on adultery? If you want to know why slavery wasn't outright abolished in Scripture, that's why. It would have meant economic disaster. Besides, the Law of Moses did compromise on divorce and therefore, adultery according to Matthew 19:3-9.

But you are still wrong, because in Exodus 21, God clearly sets up slavery. He had not need to before then because the nation was not yet big enough, before Egypt, they were just one growing family, after Egypt, you had a small nation, and thus God had to set down all the laws.

Exodus 21:1 is very much God saying "These are the laws you shall give the Isrealites". This section follows directly after the ten commandments.

The very next thing God does after saying "These are the laws you shall give the Isrealites" is God setting up what happens if you choose to engage in slavery. He never commands it, but He very much sets up a system that allows it. Exodus 21:2-11 set up slavery (granted, it was only servitude for the males, but it was slavery for the females).

God did not set up or institute slavery. As I'm sure you remember, slavery was already in existence and familiar to the Jews, they had been slaves in Egypt for 400 years. God set up protections for people because he knew that slavery couldn't be purged. To give you some perspective, he really came down hard on idolatry, but look at the Old Testament - as harsh as the law is against that, the practice continued in Israel for hundreds of years. A loving and wise God will command what is best for the people while considering the big picture in which these people live. That's why slavery was regulated, to look out for the slaves.

God allowed a child to be sold by her parents as a sex slave, to be married to some older male (be it her new master or someone the master picks), yet He wouldn't allow adultery?

No, not as a sex slave. She could not be married until she reached what was in that culture adulthood, which would have been the onset of puberty. When this occurred, she was no longer to be a slave, but to be either a wife or a free woman. Before this point, she would have been betrothed, but not a wife, and thus not someone who a slave master could legitimately have sex with, since that would have been sex outside of marriage. Her slavery would have encompassed other duties.