Why would a benevolent god condone slavery?

[redleghunter]

The bible explicitly endorses two types of slavery....indentured servitude (for Hebrews) and chattel slavery (for non-Hebrews). With indentured servitude, a person voluntarily agreed to sell his labor to his master for a temporary period of time after which the servant would be granted some kind of remuneration. With chattel slavery (the type of slavery that existed in America during the 1800s), the slave was the permanent property of his master. Most Christians acknowledge that indentured servitude existed for Hebrews, so I won't discuss this. I want to concentrate on the slavery that applied to non-Hebrews (i.e. chattel slavery). Below I will show that the Hebrews got their chattel slaves by buying them or capturing them during war.

Leviticus 25:44-46 (NKJV)
44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

Here you can see that Hebrews can buy non-Hebrew slaves as permanent property. This is in contrast to Hebrew indentured servants who entered into a contract with their masters for a set period (7 years). Indentured servants couldn't be bequeathed as inheritance because they were not considered permanent property. Also, notice that this passage makes a distinction between the treatment of Hebrews servants who are not to be treated ruthlessly like non-Hebrews were.

The second way chattel slaves could be obtained is by attacking foreign cities and enslaving the inhabitants:

Deuteronomy 20:10-18 (NKJV)
10 “When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it. 11 And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you. 12 Now if the city will not make peace with you, but war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the Lord your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. 14 But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the Lord your God gives you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16 “But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 lest they teach you to do according to all their [a]abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God.

Here we see that when the Hebrews attacked a non-Hebrew city they made an offer to the inhabitants:
(1) surrender and pay a tribute (i.e. they would be forced to work for the Hebrews) OR
(2) the men would be slaughtered and women/children and livestock taken as plunder.

In case (2), women and children are described as plunder, which is property that is (usually violently) acquired by the victor during a war. Here the Hebrews could march into a house of the conquered city and drag out any women and children and enslave them. These weren't combatants and posed little treat to the Hebrews, but they were of economic value.

Today we recognize that slavery is immoral because slavery, by its very nature, is a violation of a person’s liberty. It reduces people into objects that can be owned. Some apologists claim that slaves were treated with kindness and not abused like black slaves in America were. Even if this was true, this makes no difference to the morality of owning another person as property - slavery was and will always be immoral. Other apologists argue that these laws are no longer in force. Again this is irrelevant. The fact is that there was a point in history where god thought that owning another person as property (chattel slavery) was okay.

My question is, if an omnipotent and benevolent god exists and he gave these laws to humans, why would he condone slavery? A benevolent god and a god that condoned slavery is a contradiction. Either the god of the bible exists, in which case he isn't benevolent or he doesn't exist.

Below is an excellent video which counters many of the objections that apologists have on this subject:

Are you comparing Bronze Age servitude to the African slave trade of 17th-19th century monarchies and colonies?

 

[redleghunter]

Failing that, one of the epistle writers could make clear that he disapproves so the Bible could say at least something against slavery (no one ever did)

Paul did. He even took in a run away slave which was against Roman Law. Long before Harriet Tubman.

See Philemon.

Paul also said:

Galatians 3:
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

 

[redleghunter]

Just think about your answer for a moment. You're saying that god had a particular goal in mind (i.e. end slavery), however he couldn't achieve this goal because it was too difficult given the economic dynamics at the time. Instead he settled for something that wasn't ideal (still chattel slavery and indentured servitude like what existed in America), but it was still an improvement on what existed before. I thought we were talking about an omnipotent god who can create whole Universes at will? For something so trivial, he seems awfully incompetent?

This really shows an ignorance of Scriptures. Mankind can choose evil and usually will do so. YHWH did not create slavery and death. That was mankind wanting to be as knowledgeable as God created that mess.

Now your OP. It is a false equivalence. The slavery of the Bronze Age was a matter or survival. There was no social welfare, social security nor any safety net. It was not Mercantilistic African slavery either. Therefore you are really trying to push an anachronism.

In the Bronze Age if one did not have land to till or flocks to shepherd or did not have a skill, they starved in the wilderness. Or they found servitude to survive.

 

[redleghunter]

I would have said that humans aren't to be treated as personal property.

Sounds easy enough.

As Matt Dilahunty put it once: "He's GOD.... if he can tell you not to eat shrimp, he sure as hell can tell you not to keep slaves!"

A servant even a slave in the Bronze Age probably lived better than a 21st century minimum wage worker living pay check to pay check in heavy debt and in crime infested neighborhoods.

 

[Par5]

No they didn't. And God did allow slavery. I get your struggle. But God is just and his judgements are true. None of us may understand the reasons why God allowed all these things in the OT. None of that really matters in the end. What matters is what do you do with Christ. In the end when you stand before God, that's the only question that matters. Having an excuse of, I didn't believe because of what happened in the OT will be irrelevant. God's ways are not ours, his thoughts are not either.

It is not a struggle for me to know that slavery is wrong and that genocide and the slaughter of infants are wrong. It is not a struggle for me to know that there is no reason that can justify such things.
I don't believe in the biblical god, therefore I don't believe that a god allowed and regulated slavery. I don't believe that a god ordered the extermination of nations including their women, children and infants. Slavery and genocide and infanticide are the works of men and men alone, not the works of some imaginary being.
If I do have a struggle, it's a struggle to understand how anyone can worship a being that they believe regulated slavery and ordered its followers to commit mass murder and then say as you do that they don't understand why these things were allowed to happen. What is there not to understand about slavery, genocide and infanticide?

 

[Brother Billy]

It is not a struggle for me to know that slavery is wrong and that genocide and the slaughter of infants are wrong. It is not a struggle for me to know that there is no reason that can justify such things.
I don't believe in the biblical god, therefore I don't believe that a god allowed and regulated slavery. I don't believe that a god ordered the extermination of nations including their women, children and infants. Slavery and genocide and infanticide are the works of men and men alone, not the works of some imaginary being.
If I do have a struggle, it's a struggle to understand how anyone can worship a being that they believe regulated slavery and ordered its followers to commit mass murder and then say as you do that they don't understand why these things were allowed to happen. What is there not to understand about slavery, genocide and infanticide?

Masterful! I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[redleghunter]

What is there not to understand about slavery, genocide and infanticide?

They are all manmade constructs.

 

[Brother Billy]

Are you comparing Bronze Age servitude to the African slave trade of 17th-19th century monarchies and colonies?

Not exactly. The Bible had both chattel slavery and indentured servitude. Only the former was comparable with the African slave trade because both reduced people to objects that could be owned. Remember that the American slavery system was based on the Bible (See Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery) - the Bibles laws on slavery were referenced in American Laws on slavery.

 

[Brother Billy]

Paul did. He even took in a run away slave which was against Roman Law. Long before Harriet Tubman.

See Philemon.

Paul also said:

Galatians 3:
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

What exactly did Paul say that makes you think that he disapproved of slavery?

The passage you quoted just says that in Christ's eyes we are all the same. It doesn't mean that slavery is wrong any more than being Jewish or Greek was wrong.

Paul encouraged slaves to both accept their lot in life and not fight against it. There seems to be nothing that indicated that God wanted to phase out slavery at some point in future. In fact 1 Cor. 7:20-24 implies that God was okay with slavery existing indefinitely. Any future advocate of slavery could use Paul's words as an argument for keeping slavery. In fact many Southern slave owners did precisely this.

Paul said that slaves should seek their freedom where the opportunity presents itself. This in itself no way proves that Paul thought slavery was wrong since I could say the same thing about prisoners in a prison (since prisoners can reduce their sentence through good behavior, assisting the prosecutor in another criminal case, getting a retrial if warranted) - it doesn't mean that I think it is wrong for them to be locked up though.

 

[redleghunter]

Not exactly. The Bible had both chattel slavery and indentured servitude. Only the former was comparable with the African slave trade because both reduced people to objects that could be owned. Remember that the American slavery system was based on the Bible (See Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery) - the Bibles laws on slavery were referenced in American Laws on slavery.

There was a difference. In Torah a slave had to be cared for and if they ran away could not be returned. Even a foreign slave could convert and be considered an Israeli citizen.

American slavery is not represented in the Bible. If American slave holders actually read their Bibles they would know Galatians chapter 3 and Paul's epistle to Philemon. It is why the early Evangelicals were Abolitionists.

 

[Brother Billy]

This really shows an ignorance of Scriptures. Mankind can choose evil and usually will do so. YHWH did not create slavery and death. That was mankind wanting to be as knowledgeable as God created that mess.

Now your OP. It is a false equivalence. The slavery of the Bronze Age was a matter or survival. There was no social welfare, social security nor any safety net. It was not Mercantilistic African slavery either. Therefore you are really trying to push an anachronism.

In the Bronze Age if one did not have land to till or flocks to shepherd or did not have a skill, they starved in the wilderness. Or they found servitude to survive.

Haha are you claiming that chattel slavery in the bible was actually welfare? In third world countries today where people are starving to death because there is no food and no welfare system, would you support a system of slavery as described in Leviticus 25:44-46?

 

[Brother Billy]

There was a difference. In Torah a slave had to be cared for and if they ran away could not be returned

That law was talking about slaves in foreign lands that escaped their masters and fled to Israel. It wasn't talking about slaves who fled their Hebrew masters.

Even if it did apply to all slaves, it just meant that Hebrew masters had to keep their slaves locked up if they thought that they might escape. It doesn't mean that slaves were free to leave when they chose.

American slavery is not represented in the Bible. If American slave holders actually read their Bibles they would know Galatians chapter 3 and Paul's epistle to Philemon. It is why the early Evangelicals were Abolitionists.

The early Evangelicals were Abolitionists in spite of the Bible, not because of it. They picked and chose the verses that wanted and either reinterpreted away or ignored the verses they didn't like

 

[Par5]

A servant even a slave in the Bronze Age probably lived better than a 21st century minimum wage worker living pay check to pay check in heavy debt and in crime infested neighborhoods.

Yes indeed, the workers today on a minimum wage are in a terrible unenviable predicament. They have to put up with their employer beating them, sometimes even beating them to death. They have to put up with their employer taking their children from them, claiming them as a family inheritance. Even when their term of employment is completed they in some cases can only leave so long as they abandon their wife and children to their employer, but if they stay they have their ears tagged and must remain in that employment until the day they die. There really should be a law against it!

 

[redleghunter]

What exactly did Paul say that makes you think that he disapproved of slavery

There is no difference in Christ. That means a lot.

Paul as with Jesus Christ was not a social revolutionary. Rome was the political and economic power of the time period. Your beef should be with their politicians emperors and philosphers. Most people barely survived in ancient Rome. In many cases servitude was survival and in many cases a more opportune position economically for survival than begging in the streets.

As I mentioned, you engage in anachronisms as there were no social safety nets and minimum wage laws even in the Roman Empire.

If you are looking for a Christian moral principle on how one treats another, Jesus raised the bar from what some call the Golden rule. He told His followers to love one another as He loved them. He gave His very own life.

 

[redleghunter]

That law was talking about slaves in foreign lands that escaped their masters and fled to Israel. It wasn't talking about slaves who fled their Hebrew masters.

Deuteronomy 23:
15“You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16“He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes indeed, the workers today on a minimum wage are in a terrible unenviable predicament. They have to put up with their employer beating them, sometimes even beating them to death. They have to put up with their employer taking their children from them, claiming them as a family inheritance. Even when their term of employment is completed they in some cases can only leave so long as they abandon their wife and children to their employer, but if they stay they have their ears tagged and must remain in that employment until the day they die. There really should be a law against it!

The abuse is replaced with debt they will never be able to pay off.

 

[redleghunter]

Haha are you claiming that chattel slavery in the bible was actually welfare? In third world countries today where people are starving to death because there is no food and no welfare system, would you support a system of slavery as described in Leviticus 25:44-46?

In the Bronze age and even Iron age if you owned no property and had no means to support yourself or your family you died of starvation, exposure or worse became fodder for bandits.

That was the reality no matter how much 21st century social revolutionaries want to deal in anachronisms.

 

[redleghunter]

Even if it did apply to all slaves, it just meant that Hebrew masters had to keep their slaves locked up if they thought that they might escape. It doesn't mean that slaves were free to leave when they chose.

And why would they do that? Since we are dealing in anachronisms, the slaves were equivalent to employees. They were paid food, shelter and protection from bandits.

There are bad employers even today. If a slave was abused they could run away and not be returned.

 

[Brother Billy]

Deuteronomy 23:
15“You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16“He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.

Yes, take note of the underlined portion above. The law is telling Hebrews to allow escaped slaves which have escaped their foreign masters to settle in one of their (Hebrew) towns.

Even if it did apply to all slaves, it just meant that Hebrew masters had to keep their slaves locked up if they thought that they might escape. It doesn't mean that slaves were free to leave when they chose.

 

[redleghunter]

The early Evangelicals were Abolitionists in spite of the Bible, not because of it. They picked and chose the verses that wanted and either reinterpreted away or ignored the verses they didn't like

Incorrect. The Evangelical Abolitionists were Christian and not Bronze Age Israelites under Mosaic Law. They were following the Royal Law of loving one another as Christ loves us. That is very Biblical.