This subject is very intriguing to me. There appears to be nearly an entire pamphlets worth of material here.
I'm gonna sample some of it:
Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Both testaments seem to cover this subject pretty well. So here are my questions:
Is slavery acceptable to the christian God?
If it isn't then why doesn't He condemn it outright?
I have soooo many more questions, but I'll leave it at that for now. I guess I should apologize now to anyone who believes this horse is dead, I haven't seen this subject discussed to a satisfactory conclusion (personal opinion) yet. Thanks to any and all posters.
The type of slavery you are talking about as being kind etc. Only applies to Jewish males. Not Jewish females not non-jewish people but only Jewish males. Lets run through the list and still see if it is a well regulated and good system unlike slavery as we know it today.
1. You can beat your slave to death so long as they do not die immediately
2. Women can be sold as sex slaves against their will
3. Women from foreign nations can be taken as sex slaves.
4. You can buy slaves from foreign nations
5. You can sell slaves to foreign nations so long as they are not Jewish males
6. You can hold a Jewish male as hostage by holding on to his wife and children after he is released from service. (If he chooses to keep his wife and children he is to remain a permanent slave)
7. Slaves are regarded as property and can be bought sold traded and passed down as inheritance.
8. The slaves have no freedom and must obey their masters completely.
I apologize again, because this is an old post and I don't feel like it has done any justice to the subject matter at hand, which is slavery and the bible, does the bible condone or condemn it?
What I believe is that the Christian doctrine from both the Old and New Testament teaches that "slavery" is a sin. First and foremost we have to get our terms right, and secondly we must encompass the differences in theological teachings from the old and new testament (and divine commands). You're asking to a christian audience, so a christian answer is what you'll get.
Before I get to terms I have to outline my moral/ethical standard. Like most Christians I have this absolutism/objective outlook on moral categories which is also reflected on the bible and somewhat similar in nature to a Kantian model. But this doesn't mean that my moral are based on an arbitrary foundation, on a whim of an untrustworthy god (conscious + most perfect being). My belief is that God is the greatest conceivable being, and in his (relate-able to us by the new testament) nature, he is the source of all goodness, thus it would be against his well to act contrary to that, which is why all of his actions and well follow this logical structure of what is good,
which many people can objectively follow through their moral senses (even though we're not perfect examples of moral agents). In short God is the foundation for objective morality, his nature is all good, and his will follows a logical structure of what is good, which often leads to the greatest possible outcome. Why does God have to rely on greatest possible outcome, when he is God and could make the best outcomes, period? We're in a fallen world, and God, aside from all good is perfectly justful as well, meaning he cannot violate laws on a whim just because his heart would like to, he has to play by the rules of the system that he set up.
Having put out that disclaimer now I can present my case (and hopefully properly answer your question which cannot be simply answered without understanding some crucial points first).
In doing my research on the topic, the best conclusion that I came up with is that in the Old Testament (and some books of the new testament that makes reference to this), that talks about the Mosaic Law, it does state that pagans by law, were allowed to be used as "bondage servants", who could potentially be inherited to the children of the masters for life.
Why I use bondage servants in quotations? Its because of the servitude that comes from economic reasons, and war refugees (which ties back into the economic reasons) were servants for that reason and not that of any other reasons. Another thing for this quotation and why I don't use the term slave, is also the difference of the treatment between traditional slaves and these servants. Leviticus 25:39-40
Not only in the form of their treatment, but how they become servants is different than how slaves become slaves, Exodus 21:16 tells us that taking people against their own will to work in servitude is a universal law that is punishable by death (it has to be on their own will, even in times of war). That traditional slavery as we understand it is a Sin. Period.
Also another note that I wanted to point out, it appears that the Mosaic Law favors Israelites over Gentiles when it comes to slavery/servitude, but there is a reason why which I will go back later (Its not favoring, as much as there is a logical reason behind that distinction). But almost in every other instances such as homosexuality or breaking the Sabbath, does punishment favor Gentiles over the Israelites who live in Israel (in the example of Leviticus 20:13 which says that homosexual Israelites were to be stoned and 1 Kings 15:11-12 which stated that Gentiles who were not under the Mosaic Law were not be be stoned, instead peacefully removed from the land).
Before I expand more on Mosaic Law on this topic, I wanted to talk a little about the Christian's position on this (which this question sort of leaves out), the difference between God and the Mosaic Laws, God's will in relation to slavery or the Mosaic Law, and how Christ is God's true will without having to factor in Sin which was the purpose for the existence of the Mosaic Law (not to redeem mankind, but rather deal with Sin so that the best possible outcome could be achieved).
An important thing that I wanted to point out which some may already be aware of is that there has to be a distinction made between Mosaic Law (laws created by Mosses), the laws of King David (and other kings, which reduced the Mosaic Law), the laws of God before Christ, and the laws of Christ, which doesn't refute the older laws from God, just puts more emphasis of loving your neighbor and God with all of your heart over all of the laws (Christ is the redemptive factor in Christianity as well as providing the correct interpretive lens through which Christians should interpret the bible).
The Mosaic Law is a law reflected for its time - meant for restraining the worst excesses of a nation which was required to be marginally better than its neighbors. The Law tolerates many things which God himself did not like - such as polygamy and divorce for example - but these things God says were granted as "concessions". So all of the Mosaic Law/Troubling Passages are far from an expression of perfection, it is a compromise between God's ultimate ideals and what is possible in the reality of a nation state in that period (Sin is a factor in this, and I'll explain Sin in greater detail, when there isn't a redemptive agent to it).
Humans often feel self entitled to everything they want, which is the first misconception that many skeptics have in reading the bible (and that God owes something to mankind). God is not Santa Claus or Mary Poppins, neither Jesus, both repeatedly preached judgment by fire, (lets not forget about non-violence though), which is another common misconception. And for skeptics charging this claim against the Christian, its should be noted that this is not a big problem for the Christian as it is for the Jews (except Messianic Jews), who lack a redemptive agent in their worldview and this was the law created by them. I am not in any position to defend Ancient Jewish Law, but rather I am compelled to clarify some points or misunderstandings that I see about it.
What about God himself issuing difficult commands of killing others (killing women, children and even animals) 1 Samuel 15, or allowing Mosses and other Israelites to take for themselves human and animal spoils of war Numbers 31 15-18 Numbers 31:28-47? Well, in answering to this response that ties back to God himself (whether he's a moral agent or not that we could trust), it has to be clear that in Numbers 31, those virgins taken were not raped. How do I know this? By the law that was in place at Deuteronomy 21:10-14, which stated that any woman captured during war, had the right to marry, or go back home. At first Mosses was angered at his soldiers for sparing some lives of some nations which God commanded to be completely destroyed, but God later changed his commands to those soldiers and instead later allowed them to keep alive and take the virgin women captives. This is not meant to exonerate God, but one has to keep in mind Exodus 21:16, Galatians 3:28, 1 Timothy 2:3-4 2, Peter 3:9 which reflects God's true desires. These virgins again were not raped and had rights to leave, and also God bent his will to the will of his servants, the nation of Israel, and if some soldiers fell in love with some of these women, then those women and soldiers had the right to be together if both parties wanted.
Well some things that are now legal are still loathed by God. The reason that some rules and commands in the Bible change (Joshua can commit infanticide, Christians should harm no one) is because God changes them in relation to what is appropriate to his end and purpose. The price of Sin for example, which has everything to do with Gods commands. To put it simple, Christians follow the law of Christ, not the law of Mosses. The Old Testament tells us the severity of sin, and its price without Christ (not because God becomes evil to sinners but rather sin prevents God from protecting sinners, and it affects more than one person, as in the early days Sin eventually led to worser outcomes than death/extermination, which is why God always waits in executing his punishments in the Old Testament, until punishment is justly warranted for the best outcome). Sin always corrupts, and always leads to the greatest amount of suffering, but Nations such as Sodom, Gomorrah, Jericho, etc. (all nations that were destroyed by God) were actually relatively small nations in size (like a city block neighborhood). That's not to say that size lessened the difficultly of God's judgement, but it does tells us that suffering was minimized (God only waited until the degree and severity of their Sins warranted Judgement, such as child sacrifice, and God had to prevent those nations from growing and influencing the world, through the choices of free agents).
One last point on God's nature in regards to Mosaic Law and Slavery, although I claimed that these commands from God were not his most desired choices (as God wants everyone to be saved) he did use people to accomplish his goals which could seem like a bad thing as he is forcing people to sin, as in, if he were to do it himself, then his commands wouldn't stain anyone's hands and since he is the creator, it wouldn't be as bad as God has the right to take life and his actions would be like nature itself taking life. Well, after God flooded the world, he promised to never flood it again in order to destroy mankind. So God afterwards leaves mankind's fate on their own hands, and God could only act his will in mankind if it is through mankind itself. It would actually violate God's promise to Noah as mankind's own fate wouldn't be in our own hands, which is why God has to use people who freely follow his commands. As for the charge of God causing people to Sin, this is divine command, that is warranted, and although the nation of Israel is a third party, they are the "slave/servants" of God, so lawfully speaking, their actions have to rightfully reflect that of their master as God bought them from Egypt through their own choice. So God's judgement was justified in destroying those nations, while using his servants, the nation of Israel, which also helped shaped history through the best possible outcomes (which ultimately led to the birth of Christ that would redeem and change mankind, which was always the best possible outcome for God). Actually by God's promise, God could not act on mankind as he willed if not by another person who freely chooses to act God's will (to shape mankind's fate)
Now back to just the Mosaic Law and Slavery. What about the differences in laws between Israelites and gentiles concerning both in servitude or slavery? The idea behind the difference that exists in the laws that state gentiles could be bought but Israelites should avoid making slaves or servants among themselves is that God had bought Israel from Egypt so all of the members of Israel are servants to God, which is why the New Testament makes a lot of parables in referencing us to servants and god like a master.
So because God bought the nation of Israel from slavery in Egypt and not any other foreign nation, this doesn't mean God condones slavery (this servitude had to be willed by the servants themselves, and treatment was obviously different) so by the Mosaic law, Mosses had to consider the fact that the Israelites were the servants of god when he formed the first laws. Christian belief is that Christ redeemed mankind and that everyone, including gentiles were all the same in the eyes of God, but Israel had the choice of following Christ, or following the Mosaic Law, which did allow Israel to be in the presence of God, but lacked spiritual and redemptive properties. (which was an important point brought up in this christian and jewish debate)
What about wealthy gentiles that bought poor Israelites as his servants? If this wealthy gentile lives on the land of Israel and he bought Israelite servants, then there exists laws where those servants are allowed to buy their own freedom, or a family member buys their own freedom, or they had to wait 6 years or the year of Jubilee. The idea for these apparent rights compared to gentiles under jewish law is tied back to the idea that God owns Israel and all of its people so when one of its members sells themselves to servitude they have rights to be bought back to Israel.
about Leviticus 25:46, which happens to be one of the most troubling slave passage, which also happens to be from the New Testament, Exodus 21:5 helps clarify this idea about a slave or indentured servant working under their master for life. It basically states that anyone who wishes to work for life can do so if they love the family of their master. Although it is on the New Testament, it is only referencing the Mosaic Law, which already existed and was just describing it.
So Leviticus 25:46 is only referencing those who desire to remain in that state through their own accord and will, and not against their own will (as well as all of the other passages dealing with slavery).
but in reference to whether the bible supports more slavery proponents or abolitionists, I think the reference from both the new and old testament that claims that all man is equal and their image is created in that of god, I think those verses and doctrinal teachings alone best supports that position for slave abolitionists and proponents of human equality and human rights for everyone. (historically this teaching has been cited to be the driving force that helped develop modern human rights)
[Replying to post 4 by McCulloch]
About Hell, this isn't a closed case either. You seem interested in the subject so I'll give you the tools to research it more in depth and make up your mind (so that you could at least have warranted disbelief from your end). Traditionalism is the view that you are attacking, which many Christians have held. But in a logical sense, the justification for eternal punishment for temporal sins, in their minds goes like this, if you sin against an eternal agent such as God, then eternal punishment is warranted because those sins were against an eternal God, and the reason why people last forever in Hell, suffering for all time is because they keep on sinning which causing their suffering to be prolonged, which they keep on causing indefinitely. This is not my view, but I'm just laying the argument for the Traditionalist.
I'm actually an Annihilationist, not because it seems better and is better for me to use with unbelievers, but rather I find it more biblically supported and true. Annihiliationists on the other hand claim that the second death does last forever in the form of annihilation, where their life is extinguished. I guess the main key difference here for the damned is their state in hell, (before Christ's second coming and judgement) and then the final judgment of hell, satan, and his angels at the lake of fire, the second death that (destroys/annihilates) the soul, takes away its privilege of life. The idea is that Sin being extinguished from existence is more justful than letting it to continue to exist.
I answered the poll question as a "yes". It is a sin, but only due to the definition that a sin is something evil. However when I read the thread it had a different question, asking whether it was acceptable to Jesus. In which case, I don't know.
The god of the old testament definitely endorsed slavery and even set up rules surrounding it, eg, how badly you can beat your slave. I'm guessing Jesus went along with that endorsement.
Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.
Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.
There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.
The type of slavery you are talking about as being kind etc. Only applies to Jewish males. Not Jewish females not non-jewish people but only Jewish males. Lets run through the list and still see if it is a well regulated and good system unlike slavery as we know it today.
1. You can beat your slave to death so long as they do not die immediately
2. Women can be sold as sex slaves against their will
3. Women from foreign nations can be taken as sex slaves.
4. You can buy slaves from foreign nations
5. You can sell slaves to foreign nations so long as they are not Jewish males
6. You can hold a Jewish male as hostage by holding on to his wife and children after he is released from service. (If he chooses to keep his wife and children he is to remain a permanent slave)
7. Slaves are regarded as property and can be bought sold traded and passed down as inheritance.
8. The slaves have no freedom and must obey their masters completely.
This is SLAVERY not being a "servant"
I''m requesting references for each of these claims so they can be substantiated and addressed.
I felt like bumping this thread up because it seems quite relevant to recent discussions by skeptics that have turned to criticisms of the Judeo-Christian deity because while he put strict guidelines upon the practice of slavery.
The institution is compared to the American version, and to other ancient societies as though there are no contrasts when indeed:
He forbad their recapture under pain of death. . .
He forbade bystanders to return the runaway slave and indeed commanded them to allow a runaway slave to inhabit their city (capital punishment being implied for failing to do so)
My question addresses two things.
1) Why is the Hebrew practice of slavery compared to that of slavery as practiced in the Americas or in other ancient Bronze Age cultures while the rather stark contrasts are treated as if they don’t exist?
2) Why is the Hebrew morality of slavery, specifically that it is an abhorrent practice always, now, and forever, asserted as though it is a factual absolute by people whose atheistic secular worldview cannot allow for such absolutes since man is the final arbiter of right/wrong?
The second question is of particular interest to me since I’ve asked it of several atheists and other skeptics and the typical response has consistently been ad hominem abusive – something like “I can’t believe you’d ask that question. This tells me a lot about you! I’m shocked! SHOCKED I TELL YOU! This conversation is OVER!!� Aren’t such statements just pure distraction designed to avoid answering?
Good idea, especially as there are some notable allegations by those that claim the Hebrew system was inhumaine that were not substantiated.
Many of those familiar with the Hebrew slave system as depicted in the Hebrew bible will recognize that it is inappropriate to compare it to the barbaric trade of African slaves that existed in America and Europe from the 17th through to the 19th century.
Autodidact wrote: Explain that to us. How is buying, selling, leaving as property, other people, beneficial and merciful?
It was merciful because it allowed someone to work their way out of poverty. It ensured that someone that fell into abject poverty would not starve or be forced into prostitution. It was benefitial because it gave them the opportunity to start a debt free life after a period of time (maximum 7 years).
Autodidact wrote: Just want to make this clear. For you, if the law allows slavery, then owning a slave is moral and permissible, correct?
That would depend on the circumstances and what is meant by "slavery". As I said, the Hebrew system was a positive and merciful arrangement that did not deny the slaves their basic rights and provided them with a means to gain economic independence in a relatively short period of time while protecting them from falling into destitution; Today we call that "a job".
Autodidact wrote:
Most non-christians know what the word slavery means, but I'll explain it to you. Slavery means that one person, the slave, belongs to, and is the property of, another person, the owner. The slave must do what the owner says or risk being whipped or otherwise punished, and is not free to leave, regardless of how he or she is treated. The owner can sell the slave to someone else, regardless of how the slave feels, and the owner can leave the slave to his or her heirs as property. That is what we mean by slavery. In your view, is it moral, or immoral?
#QUESTION Is the above a fitting description of Slavery under the Hebrew system?
What is commonly thought of as "slavery" for many harks back to the barbaric system under European colonization and the transatlantic slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries. This is far from the system that was regulated under the Mosaic Law.
Slavery means that one person, the slave, belongs to, and is the property of, another person, the owner.
While this statement is essentially accurate "property" is generally kept under the control of the owner as long as he or she wishes. This was not the case under the Hebrew system where the slave was in servitude for a fixed period of time. All Hebrew slaves were freed after 7 years of servitude and all slaves could regain their freedom during the jubilee which was every 50th year (regardless of how long they had been in servitude). Any slave (Hebrew or foreigner)'s freedom could be bought back by a blood relative at any time. Any slave that happens to come across the means to buy his freedom was free to do so.
Also one must make the distinction that property doesn't usually "sell itself" while any Hebrew that had fallen into hard times could offer himself as a slave to ensure his family had a means of survival and would not starve.
The slave must do what the owner says or risk being whipped or otherwise punished
Abusive treatment of one's slave was strictly prohibited by the law which stated that Hebrews were to "love their neighbour as themselves". "One's neighbour", as Jesus was later to clarify, was anyone they came into contact with. The same law code ordered that foreigners were to be treated fairly and their rights protected. If the above laws were applied as intended no master would have mistreated or abused his slave.
Noone in Israel was to be considered above the law, thus no master had the right to force his slave to break divine law (for example, work was prohibited for EVERYONE on the sabbath; so forcing one's slave to work 7 days a week was completely illegal).
Also sexual immorality was illegal. So if a man had sex with a virgin girl (Hebrew or free woman) he had to marry her. It should be noted that once married the girl would no longer be considered a slave and would have full legal rights as a wife, including the right that her children have full inheritance rights upon his death. If a man had sex with another man's wife (whether slave or freeman) the penalty was death. Adultery was illegal.
Premeditated murder was punishable by death. A slave owner could not simply kill his slave if he ran away or hunt and slaughter him like an animal. Murdering another human being (even if he was a slave) was strictly prohibited.
[The slave] is not free to leave, regardless of how he or she is treated
This was not true under the Hebrew system. If a slave was beaten and could produce physical evidence of abuse (as in a broken tooth or a broken arm ect) then he was declared a free man (or woman) and was free to leave. As mentioned earlier if a slave could find a blood relative with the means of buying his contract he was free to leave.
Physically restraining (chaining or tying) ones slaves would be considered a violation of their person (and of the law to love their neighbour) and so slaves were not physically restrained or treated like animals.
They could if they chose "run away" although that would be considered a type of theft since they had contracturally agreed to work for a period of time in return for food and shelter. (This option however would not be particularly appealing to a slave since Hebrew slaves were not forced or taken into slavery but enter into it of their own free will to avoid hard circumstances (the exception to the above was someone found guilty of theif but lacking the means to repay what he had stolen, would have to sell himself into slavery for the time it took to pay back what he had stolen). If they ran away they would of course only find themselves back in the situation they wanted to avoid in the first place).
Further slaves that fullfilled their contracts where not sent away "empty handed" but given the financial means to start a new life, something they would forfiet if they left early.
The owner can sell the slave to someone else
On this I am not sure about the rules regulating re-selling a slave. I know that a Hebrew slave could not be sold to a foreign nation (where they could find themselves under a different and brutal system and their subsequent freedom not guaranteed) but I think the slave could indeed be sold on - input from anyone else on this point would be appreciated.
What I can say is that the fiscal controls in place would I think discourage the re-selling slaves. The price of a slave was fixed at 30 shekels but a Hebrew slave would be free after a maximum of 7 years. So it would be difficult if not impossible to find a buyer willing to give you your full 30 shekels after 5 years to receive only two years of work. Selling your slave, even if you could, would thus mean operating at a financial loss.
I can make no comment on the selling of a non-Hebrew.
The owner can leave the slave to his or her heirs as property.
As has been explained, under the Mosaic Law servitude of a Hebrew was for a fixed period, so while a son may inherit Hebrew slaves that wouldn't be for very long.
Non-Hebrews could indeed be passed from father to son as part of the son's inheritance. But remember under the Hebrew system the right of buying ones redemtion (freedom) was always a possibility. Slaves did not work for nothing, nor were they prohibited from owning property or trading with their own means so slave could in fact become wealthy and if they so wished buy their own freedom. The right of a blood relative to buy them their freedom also remained in permanence. (see Lev 25: 49).
JW
RELATED POSTS
Was chattel slavery as practiced under the American slave trade system, the same as the lifelong slavery legilsated in ancient Israel? viewtopic.php?p=1079902#p1079902
JehovahsWitness wrote:It depends. The Mosaic law allowed and regulated a system of servitude that was both benefitial and merciful.
Explain that to us. How is buying, selling, leaving as property, other people, beneficial and merciful. What about circumcising adult males without anesthesia? Explain how that's merciful and beneficial. How about selling your daughter into sexual slavery? Lay it out forus.
Christians were told to submit to the systems they found themselves under; so owning a slave was not considered a sin in the Christian arrangement.
Just want to make this clear. For you, if the law allows slavery, then owning a slave is moral and permissible, correct?
While abuse of that arrangement would be in direct violation to the Christian law of love, the non-believing slave owner would have no regard for God's law, so it would not have been a protection for someone whose owner was not a Christian.
On the other hand, the non-believer doesn't have authorization from God to treat another person as property.
The above Roman system of servitude existed in Jesus day and there is no record he either condemned or approved of it. He did not authorize his followers to fight to overthrow they socially unjust system that existed (see Math 22:21)
Nor did He command them not to own slaves themselves. Nor did He ever in any way refer to it as unjust, or criticize it in any way. In fact, He specifically commanded all slaves to obey their masters.
Just 2 cents here: Jesus taught mercy and love. That's what he was all about. He said that the two most important commandments are:
"'You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.' [Quoting from Deut.6:5; 10:12.] This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, 'You must love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)
Point: EVERYONE is our neighbor. We are to love them---everyone, with no exception---and if we truly do, we will not harm them in any way. Therefore, it stands to reason that if a slave-owner became a believer he would not treat the slave in the manner we think of today as treatment of a slave. That person would be an "employee" to the believer. If a believing person happened to be a slave to an unbeliever, he would be in a fix. Neither God nor Jesus would approve of any cruel treatment that slave would receive, but the teaching of Jesus would be to be the most cooperative slave that the believer could be. If the slave followed the teachings of Jesus as best he could, he would reap rewards at the end of this system of things.
CrunkJuice wrote:
Genesis 24:35: "And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses."
God loves giving people slaves...
I doubt that Abraham treated his servant employees in a cruel, unfair manner. Don't people today have maids and butlers, cooks and gardeners? Most are treated well. What is so bad about God giving Abraham these people?
