Why didn't God ban slavery outright instead of creating laws to regulate it?

[Daniel Martinovich]

I think they had to share because Jesus himself used to set aside money from the disciples' common fund for the poor. Judas stole from the funds that were being donated to them. In this case Jesus himself was living communally even if you do not find it as much in the Old Testament.

In Acts 5, a couple sold a property and gave the money to Peter's group. They had promised to share equally, but these two violated the agreement. In the text Ananias and Sapphira kept some of the common funds for themselves and died as a result.

In Acts 6 the group set aside funds for the widows. There was an argument the funds were not being dsitributed fairly.

In Paul's churches there were some who were living with wealth. Paul's people gave to him as he made a living by his teaching and they want to help his with his traveling expenses. Paul also worked with his own hands to fund his work. They gave what they could and owned their own property.

Philemon owned the slave Onesimus. Paul wrote to Philemon asking for fair treatment of Onesimus, that Onesimus should be treated not as a slave, but as a brother (Philemon 1).

Paul was critical of slave traders reckoning them as unholy and profane:

1 Timothy 1:8 (WEB) But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully, 9 as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; 11 according to the Good News of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

There is a vast difference between giving to help the poor and fund the ministry verses communal living. I chose the word communal living very carefully.
Biblical principle on giving and receiving is expressed in different ways depending on the circumstances people find themselves in. That is why you see no instructions to the churches to “tithe.” The principle is still in effect, ie the reason the law was given is still valid. The way it’s done though has changed.

Human slavery, like polygamy has always been a great sin. Yourcorrect. However all the generations of mankind up until the last few centuries simply did not have what it took to make it illegal. That is why God tolerated it. Even amoung his saints. Once the circumstances came about.... providentially or not for it to be made illegal, with the force of government behind the ban. His toleration of it ceased.

 

[Vicomte13]

Why didn't God ban slavery outright instead of creating laws to regulate it?

Probably for a few reasons. First and foremost, in the ancient world of the Hebrews, there were no prisons as such - there were just holding pens for those awaiting execution or sale. There was very little economic excess. Most people lived hand-to-mouth, and most labor was manual.

So, then, when men were captured in war, what was the alternative to slavery? Just killing them outright. They could not be let go to go and return to the ranks of the enemy. And there was no margin of excess in society to keep men alive in cages awaiting the end of hostilities. Hostilities were generational.

So, what were the alternatives? The captive enemy could be killed on the spot. He could be killed in some sort of public spectacle. He could be maimed so that he could no longer fight - cut his hands off, gouge his eyes out. In this way he would slowly die of starvation. Or he could be enslaved and work could be gotten out of him, which then required also feeding him, clothing him and housing him.

Which is more humane: death, torture, maiming or slavery. There is no fifth choice for foreign captives: if you let them go, they will rejoin their tribe and come kill your people. And there was nothing like the excess available to those people to simply keep adult men idle in cages for their lives. Everybody was living hand-to-mouth.

So pick one of the four options. Had God abolished slavery, it would have meant that all prisoners of war would have been executed or maimed: they could never be allowed to live or let go.

Slavery was THE MOST HUMANE OPTION. There was no other option but death and permanent disfigurement.

Put it to a vote of ancient prisoners - your choice is to die now, to be crippled for life so you can never fight again in any manner, or to be a slave. 100% would choose slavery for themselves.

Now look at the key facets of Israelite slavery as handed down by God. If the slave converted to the God of Israel, he was no longer to be treated as a slave, but as an indentured servant, an Israelite.

The slave of the Israelites always held the key to unlock their slavery. Submit to and convert to the worship of God. That's all that was required.

In this way, the belief in God literally freed the prisoners.

We have spoken of the male captives, prisoners, and the stark choice of dealing with them.

Now consider the particular plight of female captives of war or slaves purchased from other. Think of THEIR usual fate. Now notice what God did instead. Female captives are slaves. If you're an Israelite, you cannot rape your slaves. If you want to have sex with your captive women, you have to give them a month to mourn the loss of their family to your war, and then you marry them - which makes their circumcised sons Israelites with inheritance rights in the land of Israel. Female slaves become wives and their children, Israelites.

Israelite slavery was imposed by God as a means to PRESERVE THE LIVES of captives and prisoners, and give them the prospect of freedom through conversion, and the prospect of a future inheritance for their children. It was the crucible by which the non-Hebrew could become, individually, a man of YHWH and a member of the tribe. And in any case, in the 50th year the slave was freed.

American slavery and other slavery, of course, bore no resemblance at all to the slavery of God's Law. And the Israelites did not obey God in this manner either.

Nevertheless, God's law of slavery was an absolute, positive GOOD, a BOON to the slaves: it preserved their lives and their sexual virtue, and it offered them liberty and the favor of God through conversion to be one of God's people. And it offered their children an inheritance in the land of Israel.

God's slavery was a mean of preserving lives and converting souls. It was a good thing.

Had American slavery been anything at all like that, it would have been a positive good also. But it was nothing like that.

That's why God did not abolish slavery, but rather, transformed it into a vehicle for the salvation of many - IF the Israelites obeyed the law.

They didn't.

 

[dcalling]

The sacred scriptures are a window into what was once acceptable among men of faith in past ages. Slavery in America inspired Alex Huxley to write "Roots", but that doesn't mean Roots was written by slavery.

Exodus 21:20-21 "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.

That's simply a tribal rule conceived by religious men goaded by a moral conscience. A moral conscience originates from God in all religions. Only in that way could we say it was "inspired".

And Jesus also said God allowed divorce because people's heart is hard.

Man always have their own moral standards, and try to tweak it toward their own advantage. Only God shows us that we are all brothers, and that we should love others as ourselves, even love our enemies. That is not the standards of men.

The moral conscience of men, is "My father, can I smite them?", "call fire down from heaven and ·destroy [the nonbelievers]", good men should not die, that guy is richer than me so it is not fair, or that if you oppress me, I rebel.

 

[Deadworm]

Paul twice insists that in Christ there can be no distinction between slave and freeman in how slaves are treated in the Christian community (Galatians 3:27-28; Colossians 3:11). But what does this mean in practice? We must remember that in Paul's day Christians are a small persecuted minority and that the institution of slavery is universally perceived as an essential aspect of the Greco-Roman economy. Yet Paul hints that that is OK for Christian slaves to seek their freedom (1 Corinthians 7:20-24). Paul expects Philemon to accept a returning runaway Christian slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but as more than a slave--a beloved brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord (Philemon 16)." Paul finds himself in an awkward situation because by law Philemon is entitled to severely punish Onesimus. So he can only hint at his desire to do more than accept him "as a beloved brother in the flesh" by giving him his freedom: "I am writing this to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say (21)."

 

[Halbhh]

Probably for a few reasons. First and foremost, in the ancient world of the Hebrews, there were no prisons as such - there were just holding pens for those awaiting execution or sale. There was very little economic excess. Most people lived hand-to-mouth, and most labor was manual.

So, then, when men were captured in war, what was the alternative to slavery? Just killing them outright. They could not be let go to go and return to the ranks of the enemy. And there was no margin of excess in society to keep men alive in cages awaiting the end of hostilities. Hostilities were generational.

So, what were the alternatives? The captive enemy could be killed on the spot. He could be killed in some sort of public spectacle. He could be maimed so that he could no longer fight - cut his hands off, gouge his eyes out. In this way he would slowly die of starvation. Or he could be enslaved and work could be gotten out of him, which then required also feeding him, clothing him and housing him.

Which is more humane: death, torture, maiming or slavery. There is no fifth choice for foreign captives: if you let them go, they will rejoin their tribe and come kill your people. And there was nothing like the excess available to those people to simply keep adult men idle in cages for their lives. Everybody was living hand-to-mouth.

So pick one of the four options. Had God abolished slavery, it would have meant that all prisoners of war would have been executed or maimed: they could never be allowed to live or let go.

Slavery was THE MOST HUMANE OPTION. There was no other option but death and permanent disfigurement.

Put it to a vote of ancient prisoners - your choice is to die now, to be crippled for life so you can never fight again in any manner, or to be a slave. 100% would choose slavery for themselves.

Now look at the key facets of Israelite slavery as handed down by God. If the slave converted to the God of Israel, he was no longer to be treated as a slave, but as an indentured servant, an Israelite.

The slave of the Israelites always held the key to unlock their slavery. Submit to and convert to the worship of God. That's all that was required.

In this way, the belief in God literally freed the prisoners.

We have spoken of the male captives, prisoners, and the stark choice of dealing with them.

Now consider the particular plight of female captives of war or slaves purchased from other. Think of THEIR usual fate. Now notice what God did instead. Female captives are slaves. If you're an Israelite, you cannot rape your slaves. If you want to have sex with your captive women, you have to give them a month to mourn the loss of their family to your war, and then you marry them - which makes their circumcised sons Israelites with inheritance rights in the land of Israel. Female slaves become wives and their children, Israelites.

Israelite slavery was imposed by God as a means to PRESERVE THE LIVES of captives and prisoners, and give them the prospect of freedom through conversion, and the prospect of a future inheritance for their children. It was the crucible by which the non-Hebrew could become, individually, a man of YHWH and a member of the tribe. And in any case, in the 50th year the slave was freed.

American slavery and other slavery, of course, bore no resemblance at all to the slavery of God's Law. And the Israelites did not obey God in this manner either.

Nevertheless, God's law of slavery was an absolute, positive GOOD, a BOON to the slaves: it preserved their lives and their sexual virtue, and it offered them liberty and the favor of God through conversion to be one of God's people. And it offered their children an inheritance in the land of Israel.

God's slavery was a mean of preserving lives and converting souls. It was a good thing.

Had American slavery been anything at all like that, it would have been a positive good also. But it was nothing like that.

That's why God did not abolish slavery, but rather, transformed it into a vehicle for the salvation of many - IF the Israelites obeyed the law.

They didn't.

Very informative and also very useful information, and good points too. Together with some additional details in post #17 (it can help to actually see some of those precise scriptural regulations), this would be much of the content for a good article.

 

[JIMINZ]

The bible contains the opinions and viewpoints of the men who wrote it, colored by the age in which they lived. It contains many great truths, but includes many falsehoods as well. It is a great mistake to worship the writings of men. God has never written a single word. Even His Son, was careful to leave no written works behind penned by His hand. We would all do well to consider His reasons for this.

.
Sure it does.

 

[Neogaia777]

A better translation of the word "slave" in the original greek is I believe servant, bondservant etc. Taking on that meaning of the word slave instead of our currently inferred definition of black slavery in the USA, we are to treat our slaves (bondservants) with respect.

However, why didn't God outright ban slavery, especially when fighting wars? Why did God allow the Israelites to take slaves at all? Sure they might have treated them real well compared to other nations, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that you took a "lifetime bondservant".

To be clear, I'm not talking about slavery due to debts, that one makes complete sense, you owe me money, come work for me for 6 years and you even get fed and housed.

I have heard the position that preventing slavery during those times was impossible, thus God sought to curb its sinful effects. I'm not too convinced by that, but if someone could explain that in more detail that would be nice, or another position or argument about why God didn't do what he could.

Because even an ever-lasting kingdom requires class distinctions...

Also, back then, slavery was needed for a more stable society back then... It was part of the economic system, everything...

In that time and era, slavery was a phase fallen man would have to go through...

God Bless!

 

[mathinspiration]

Times were different then.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I'm thinking you mean something explicit in the bible. I believe it isn't explicit because in Jesus' day slavery was a part of the way many of the needs of society were solved. Convicting it as sin explicitly would be a solution worse than the cure. Illegal immigration, these days, is serving a role similar to the role slaves did. Deporting them all out now isn't a good solution for the same kinds of reasons. imo. The Apostles did teach to treat your slave with Christian love and if the slace was Christian to treat him as a brother. God tried to prevent slavery by commanding that the Hebrews leave no one alive when they conquered a people or nation. Kill them or make them captives. What else is there when eliminating their culture is the goal? Slavery was really an economic solution or a war solution in ancient times. The slavery of black people is different. That didn't last long relative to slavery in ancient times. The informed consciences among men and women eventually had eneogh influence to develop a culture of anti-slavery. In a way, the Gospel is the teaching that informed the conscience that it is a wrong. In the past, the image of a slave didn't call to mind any particular ethnic group or skin color. A slave could be any people or ethnicity. The image of slavery wasn't racial. Perhaps it took the image of a slave to change from being anyone to being no one, unless you're black.

 

[buzuxi02]

It's actually quite irrelevant for God outlawing something. Murder is outlawed but it still happens.
If you read ancient law books such as Justinians Codex from the 6th century, you would see that slavery fell under the law of nations. That is regardless of race, creed and culture slavery was regarded as an unnatural state, yet agreed upon its neccesity by the International community. God or gods did not play a role but was tolerated by the free will of men in authority. Islam, about 200 years later were the first and only to believe slavery was a divinely ordained institution. Before then all societies agreed it was an unnatural state but one that was required for economic reasons which included manual labor (today we simply pay using slave wages of the money from the printing press), to free up time for the intelligentsia and thinkers (technology leading to more efficient means of production has given us more leisure time), for individuals to either pay off debt or volunteer temporarily to be a slave for a future payout (today we have credit and a fiat money system), and military reasons (today we have Geneva convention rules), etc. Slavery did not disappear due to some moral reason it disappeared because it became obselete (in most places)

 

[SkyWriting]

It's actually quite irrelevant for God outlawing something. Murder is outlawed but it still happens.
If you read ancient law books such as Justinians Codex from the 6th century, you would see that slavery fell under the law of nations. That is regardless of race, creed and culture slavery was regarded as an unnatural state, yet agreed upon its neccesity by the International community. God or gods did not play a role but was tolerated by the free will of men in authority. Islam, about 200 years later were the first and only to believe slavery was a divinely ordained institution. Before then all societies agreed it was an unnatural state but one that was required for economic reasons which included manual labor (today we simply pay using slave wages of the money from the printing press), to free up time for the intelligentsia and thinkers (technology leading to more efficient means of production has given us more leisure time), for individuals to either pay off debt or volunteer temporarily to be a slave for a future payout (today we have credit and a fiat money system), and military reasons (today we have Geneva convention rules), etc. Slavery did not disappear due to some moral reason it disappeared because it became obselete (in most places)

If you have a job, then you know it has only changed it's form.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm thinking you mean something explicit in the bible. I believe it isn't explicit because in Jesus' day slavery was a part of the way many of the needs of society were solved. Convicting it as sin explicitly would be a solution worse than the cure. Illegal immigration, these days, is serving a role similar to the role slaves did. Deporting them all out now isn't a good solution for the same kinds of reasons. imo. The Apostles did teach to treat your slave with Christian love and if the slace was Christian to treat him as a brother.

What Does the Bible Say About How To Beat Your Slaves? - OpenBible.info

 

[SolomonVII]

A better translation of the word "slave" in the original greek is I believe servant, bondservant etc. Taking on that meaning of the word slave instead of our currently inferred definition of black slavery in the USA, we are to treat our slaves (bondservants) with respect.

However, why didn't God outright ban slavery, especially when fighting wars? Why did God allow the Israelites to take slaves at all? Sure they might have treated them real well compared to other nations, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that you took a "lifetime bondservant".

To be clear, I'm not talking about slavery due to debts, that one makes complete sense, you owe me money, come work for me for 6 years and you even get fed and housed.

I have heard the position that preventing slavery during those times was impossible, thus God sought to curb its sinful effects. I'm not too convinced by that, but if someone could explain that in more detail that would be nice, or another position or argument about why God didn't do what he could.

Of course, I don't know why God does what he does, unless he leaves a detailed explanation of what is motivating him at any given point of time.

But one might think of what would be the consequences of winning a battle, and leaving survivors behind to regroup for the next attempted extermination of the Hebrew enemy?
What would be the consequences of leaving women and children behind in a violent world to fend for themselves?

Or, what would be the consequences of taking them in, and setting them up on some kind of reservation system, say, all their needs provided for, and nothing needed for them to do to take care of their needs?

Actually, we have real life examples of how the reservation system turned out.

Laws are always going to be arbitrary and less than perfect. Christianity has turned things around from OT days where law making is on us much more than God. The question is no longer so much why did God do the things we did, but how are we going to do things better now that the onus is on us?

As it turns out, it is not so easy for us either.

 

[Shempster]

Slavery is when one person makes another person work for them and does not pay them appropriately.
So my question is: at what financial level of payment do things change from employment to slavery?

In the worst slavery conditions, the master at least gave the slave food to survive. Some gave alot. Some gave just enough to keep them alive.
Modern "employers" who pay minimum wage could be viewed as no better than slave masters of yesteryear. Some employers pay employees well enough for them to be considered rich.

So is the definition of slavery dependent upon the current value of the pay distributed or should we consider other things like the workers' working conditions?

 

[Vicomte13]

Slavery is when one person makes another person work for them and does not pay them appropriately.
So my question is: at what financial level of payment do things change from employment to slavery?

In the worst slavery conditions, the master at least gave the slave food to survive. Some gave alot. Some gave just enough to keep them alive.
Modern "employers" who pay minimum wage could be viewed as no better than slave masters of yesteryear. Some employers pay employees well enough for them to be considered rich.

So is the definition of slavery dependent upon the current value of the pay distributed or should we consider other things like the workers' working conditions?

The key factors are the ability to quit the job and walk away - slaves can't - and the ability to inflict corporal punishment upon the worker - employers can't, slave-owners can. A slave is not an employee. He or she is livestock.

 

[SolomonVII]

Slavery is when one person makes another person work for them and does not pay them appropriately.
So my question is: at what financial level of payment do things change from employment to slavery?

In the worst slavery conditions, the master at least gave the slave food to survive. Some gave alot. Some gave just enough to keep them alive.
Modern "employers" who pay minimum wage could be viewed as no better than slave masters of yesteryear. Some employers pay employees well enough for them to be considered rich.

So is the definition of slavery dependent upon the current value of the pay distributed or should we consider other things like the workers' working conditions?

In feudalism, the serfs were ostensibly materially worse off than corresponding slaves would be because they were still tied to the land, and their lords were not responsible for their upkeep, especially during the winter.
Indeed, that was the logic of the feudal system. It was a cost-saving measure.

Nevertheless, the feudal system, as brutal as it was, ever crushed people's spirits like slavery does. Slavery makes people totally dependant on their oppressors. Like Hagar, incapable of taking care of herself and her son once she was set free, or like the Hebrews pining over the fleshpots of Egypt once they were redeemed, slavery infantalizes people to where they do not see themselves as legitimate actors who are capable of taking care of themselves.
The worse things got for the serfs of feudal Europe, the stronger they became. It is like boiling an egg; the more that you boil it the harder it becomes, that which does not kill us makes us stronger, etc., etc. The serfs were encharged with taking care of themselves in the harshest of conditions, and they did, and then they went on to take care of themselves on their own farms across the globe.

 

[PollyJetix]

A better translation of the word "slave" in the original greek is I believe servant, bondservant etc. Taking on that meaning of the word slave instead of our currently inferred definition of black slavery in the USA, we are to treat our slaves (bondservants) with respect.

However, why didn't God outright ban slavery, especially when fighting wars? Why did God allow the Israelites to take slaves at all? Sure they might have treated them real well compared to other nations, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that you took a "lifetime bondservant".

To be clear, I'm not talking about slavery due to debts, that one makes complete sense, you owe me money, come work for me for 6 years and you even get fed and housed.

I have heard the position that preventing slavery during those times was impossible, thus God sought to curb its sinful effects. I'm not too convinced by that, but if someone could explain that in more detail that would be nice, or another position or argument about why God didn't do what he could.

I am convinced that God takes us from where we are, and works on us slowly to get us to grow to be more like Christ.
There is much in the Old Testament that God allowed, which the New forbids.
Polygamy... unfair treatment of women... genocide...

The only way I can wrap my head around this, is to understand that Moses gave some precepts for the purpose of forcing hard hearts to treat others a bit better. Mark 10:5 for instance, tells us that Moses wrote Deut 24:1-2 to force a hateful husband to write a divorce decree to truly set his wife free, instead of just turning her out of house and home, with no legal right to find another provider (as is Middle East custom.) Deut 24:3-4 seems to be insurance for women, against what happens regularly in Muslim countries, when husbands will divorce their wives for a night, to sell her services to another Muslim, who "marries" her for that night.

The same goes for slavery... People in the Old Testament were not born again. They were unable to keep even the Law that was given. God never commanded them to have slaves. He only outlined for them how to treat slaves, if they had them. And he forbade them to hold fellow Israelites as slaves. They had to be held as "bondservants" ... and all of those had to be set free every 50 years. Furthermore, in that 50th year, every piece of ground was given back to the offspring of the family that inherited it from the day Joshua partitioned the land. Therefore, there was no such thing as perpetual slavery (nor any such thing as unrestrained capitalism) in Israel. Everyone eventually got a fair chance.