I hear this one a lot from atheists and other critics of the Bible. "The Bible is immoral and promotes slavery!" They then cite passages from Exodus and Leviticus. Indeed, types of slavery were legal according to the OT law. But libertarians understand that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's moral. And outlawing it, doesn't make it go away. (Today, slavery is illegal, but we have more people in illegal slavery than ever before.) I believe the same is true of God's law in the OT. Since the law was not given to all mankind, just Israel, we understand that just because something was legal, that doesn't mean it was morally right. Divorce was legal according to the OT law, but Jesus clarified that does not mean it was morally right.
I recently had a conversation with an atheist on facebook and decided I'd post some of it here for you to read.
Atheist: Your bible not only condones slavery,
but demands it. It details how to do, when to do it, and who to do it
to. How is that moral? How is your god moral if slavery was a
perfectly acceptable way of life?
Me: I
would love to answer your other questions David. I know very good
answers for all of those. And they are good questions. But I have to ask
first if you would be willing to accept the answer. Are you genuinely
asking a question, or will you just find another excuse not to believe?
Atheist: I'm
always open to anything. Are you asking me if I'm going to convert to
Christianity based on the answers you give? Probably not. Maybe you'll
give me something to think about, but I doubt it. Just like you're
trying to convert me, I'm also trying to convert you. No one goes into a
debate hoping to lose. I will always be open-minded, but can I same
about you?
Me: Thanks for taking the time to read and for your honest answer.
"Now,
Christianity [in the ancient world] never made an attack upon the evil
of slavery, but it reached down to the slave in his degradation and
lifted him up, assuring him of his liberty in Christ and preached a
gospel that--the very nature of it--condemns slavery and it eventually
broke the shackles of slavery from the bodies of men and cut the fetters
from their minds and souls... the church did not instigate
revolution... but it preached a gospel that was more revolutionary than a
revolution has ever been..."
- Dr. J. Vernon McGee
If
it were not for the influence of the Bible, slavery would still be
legal in most of the world. The first proponents of human rights were
Bible-believing Christians motivated by their faith to abolish slavery
because they believed the fundamental truth that all men are created
equal in the image of God; people like William Wilberforce and Bartolome
de las Casas. Today, most of the people I know who are fighting
human-trafficking are Christians who are motivated by their faith in God
and the authority of the Bible to do so.
This is one article that details slavery in the OT better than I can. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/.../201102_108_slavery...
Why,
in your worldview, is slavery wrong? I believe it is wrong because we
are all made equal in God’s image so he determines our rights, not other
men. Why, according to your view, can’t men determine the rights of
others?
Atheist: First
things first: You keep going back to WHY do I think things are wrong
if I don't have some moral authority to tell me that it's wrong? I've
told you already. Because we've evolved to know so. Do I know the
EXACT reason or way we've evolved in this way? No. But using god or
bible is no answer either. The bible is an immoral book in my opinion
and I'm glad we don't get our morals from it. The OT is full of
horrible things. God did horrible things. We've evolved to know those
things are horrible that's why you don't follow 99% of the laws from the
OT.
That
article is missing one important thing. It's only covering the laws
god gave concerning enslaving fellow Israelites. The bible makes a
distinction between enslaving fellow Israelites and foreigners.
Leviticus 25:39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell
themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be
treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to
work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children
are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the
property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants,
whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not
rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."
That's
the passage that article is covering. But the article is misleading.
Like this passage: "Note: In the Old Testament, outsiders did not
impose servanthood — as in the antebellum South.6 Masters could hire
servants “from year to year” and were not to “rule over … [them]
ruthlessly” (Leviticus 25:46,53). Rather than being excluded from
Israelite society, servants were thoroughly embedded within Israelite
homes." But it fails to state the entire verse of Leviticus 25:46 which
if you go back to verse 44 it says: "Your male and female slaves are
to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45
You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and
members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your
property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited
property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over
your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
So
you see there that the god is clearly saying that when you "buy"
foreigners you can keep them for life and even pass them on to your
children as PROPERTY. That is not indentured servitude. That is
slavery. The bible is saying that you just couldn't make your own
people slaves. But as for foreigners, anything goes.
And
since the Israelites are "special" people, they couldn't be slaves even
though they could own slaves. Leviticus 25:47 “‘If a foreigner
residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become
poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the
foreigner’s clan, 48 they retain the right of redemption after they have
sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or
a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if
they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50 They and their buyer are to
count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of
Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a
hired worker for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, they
must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them.
52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to
compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53 They are to be
treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that
those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly. 54
“‘Even if someone is not redeemed in any of these ways, they and their
children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55 for the
Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I
brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
So
you see, your god did most certainly condone slavery, he just didn't
like Israelites being slaves. If you want more proof, god also goes on
to differentiate between men and women Israelite slaves saying that
Israelite women WON'T be let go after 7 years. In Exodus 21:7 is says
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the
end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who
bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not
allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the
contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to
marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must
treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes
another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep
with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may
leave as a free woman without making any payment." What a way to treat
your daughter!
But
the be all to end all is Exodus 21:2--6 where: “If you buy a Hebrew
servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he
shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go
free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4
If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the
woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man
shall go free.
5
“But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and
children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him
before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and
pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." FOR
LIFE!! Sorry, but that is not indentured servitude. That is slavery.
Slavery in the purest form. How horrible is that? If I give my slave a
wife and they have children, when it's time for the man to go free, as
long as I keep the woman and children hostage, and if the man doesn't
want to leave his wife and children, then I can make them all my slaves
(property) for life! That's your god's commandments. Those are his
orders. There's no way to justify that. There's no way to twist that.
So, in conclusion, how can you claim to get your morality from such an immoral god and book?
Me: "First
things first: You keep going back to WHY do I think things are wrong if
I don't have some moral authority to tell me that it's wrong? I've told
you already. Because we've evolved to know so. Do I know the EXACT
reason or way we've evolved in this way? No."
So it's mere opinion then. You also dodged my more specific questions.
The Leviticus passage
a.
You shall not compel him to serve as a slave: In the Mosaic law, if one
chronically could not pay his debts, he would have to work off the debt
as a servant of his creditor. But these laws command fair, just and
compassionate treatment of any Jewish man so unfortunate.
b.
Shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee: Not only must such a servant
be released when his debt was paid, but he also must be released at the
year of Jubilee.
c.
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: Foreign slaves among the Jews did not have the same rights as
Hebrew slaves sold into servitude because of debt; they could be held as
slaves for life, though they had to be treated humanely (Exodus
20:8-11; 21:20-21).
Slavery
was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed
before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was
conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms,
famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God.
Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very
badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even
though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has
allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites
to treat them properly.
The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46),
The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11)
The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)
The
reality of slavery cannot be denied. Slaves were "slave labor played a
minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately owned slaves
functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or
industrial labor force."
Barnes’ notes says,
Verses 44-46
Property
in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal
custom Genesis 17:12. Such slaves might be captives taken in war
(Numbers 31:6 following; Deuteronomy 20:14), or those consigned to
slavery for their crimes, or those purchased of foreign slave-dealers.
The price of a slave is supposed to have varied from thirty to fifty
shekels. See Leviticus 27:3-4, note; Exodus 21:32, note; Zechariah
11:12-13, note; Matthew 26:15, note. It was the object of Moses, not at
once to do away with slavery, but to discourage and to mitigate it. The
Law would not suffer it to be forgotten that the slave was a man, and
protected him in every way that was possible at the time against the
injustice or cruelty of his master. See the notes at Leviticus 25:46
Leviticus 25:54
In
these years - More properly, by one of these means. The extreme period
of servitude in this case was six years, as when the master was a Hebrew
Exodus 21:2.
Looking
at the law of the Jubilee from a simply practical point of view, its
operation must have tended to remedy those evils which are always
growing up in the ordinary conditions of human society. It prevented the
permanent accumulation of land in the hands of a few, and periodically
raised those whom fault or misfortune had sunk into poverty to a
position of competency. It must also have tended to keep alive family
feeling, and helped to preserve the family genealogies.
a.
But in its more special character, as a law given by Yahweh to His
special people, it was a standing lesson to those who would rightly
regard it, on the terms upon which the enjoyment of the land of promise
had been conferred upon them. All the land belonged to Yahweh as its
supreme Lord, every Israelite as His vassal belonged to Him. The voice
of the Jubilee horns, twice in every century, proclaimed the equitable
and beneficent social order appointed for the people; they sounded that
acceptable year of Yahweh which was to bring comfort to all that
mourned, in which the slavery of sin was to be abolished, and the true
liberty of God‘s children was to be proclaimed Luke 2:25; Isaiah 61:2;
Luke 4:19; Acts 3:21; Romans 8:19-23; 1 Peter 1:3-4.
The Exodus passage
First
of all, the 2-6 verse indicate someone who *willingly* stays. As in, it
is his choice. And the word changes from slave to servant. He becomes a
willing servant for life. Not an unwilling slave for life.
Verse 7
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
If
a man sell his daughter - This the Jews allowed no man to do but in
extreme distress - when he had no goods, either movable or immovable
left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only
while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that
such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this
servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it
was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where
the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so
much per week during that period.
Geneva Study Bible
And if a man {f} sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
(f) Forced either by poverty, or else with the intent that the master should marry her.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
The
mishpatim (Exodus 21:1) are not the "laws, which were to be in force
and serve as rules of action," as Knobel affirms, but the rights, by
which the national life was formed into a civil commonwealth and the
political order secured. These rights had reference first of all to the
relation in which the individuals stood one towards another. The
personal rights of dependants are placed at the head (Exodus 21:2-11);
and first those of slaves (Exodus 21:2-6), which are still more minutely
explained in Deuteronomy 15:12-18, where the observance of them is
urged upon the hearts of the people on subjective grounds.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Ex 21:7-36. Laws for Maidservants.
7-11.
if a man sell his daughter—Hebrew girls might be redeemed for a
reasonable sum. But in the event of her parents or friends being unable
to pay the redemption money, her owner was not at liberty to sell her
elsewhere. Should she have been betrothed to him or his son, and either
change their minds, a maintenance must be provided for her suitable to
her condition as his intended wife, or her freedom instantly granted.
More detail on this site. http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
Atheist: a.)
"But these laws command fair, just and compassionate treatment of any
Jewish man so unfortunate." JEWISH man, not foreigner. Concerning
foreigners, they could treat them like crap and it was fine. They could
beat them as long as they didn't die: Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats
their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies
as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave
recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." That
clearly says that the slave is property.
b.) Again, that only applies to fellow Israelites.
c.)
Exodus 20:8-11 is only saying that the slaves must not work on the
Sabbath. That has nothing to do with humane treatment, that's their
law.
I've
already posted Exodus 21:20-21 above for "a" and that is a horrible
verse. That verse is an example of the immorality of the bible.
"Slavery
was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world." Why wasn't
murder permitted? Why wasn't lying permitted? Why wasn't fornication
permitted?
"Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed." Did you seriously just compare divorce to SLAVERY?!
"God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly." Why not instruct them to not do it at all?
"The
Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master
(Ex. 21:23....." That verse has nothing to do with slavery. Leviticus
25:44-46 makes my point almost more than any other verse.
"The
Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20" So
because they weren't supposed to kill their slave you're saying that's
restricting their power? You forgot the part about being able to beat
their slaves close to death and as long as they don't die within a day,
then everything was fine. I guess if they die three days later because
of internal bleeding or something then everything's still fine, right?
"The
slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)"
So were the donkeys and oxen, should the slaves still feel special?
"The
slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen.
17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11)" Oh wow, thanks. I'm sure the slaves
were just so happy to be able to get circumcised and were able to
actually eat food from a god they probably didn't worship to begin with.
You're saying they should happy that they were able to participate in
religious ceremonies with their masters? Do you think slaves in the
United States should have been just as grateful?
"The
Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut.
23:16-17)." Well, that's finally ONE good thing the bible says about
slaves.
"The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12). When
a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive
economically (Deut. 15:14)" Those last two only applied to fellow
Israelites.
"....privately
owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an
agricultural or industrial labor force." Except that they weren't.
You can change the meaning of words all you like but a slave is slave.
They beat their slaves. You can say they beat their domestic servants
all you want but that doesn't change the reality of they were. They
were slaves plain and simple.
If
we know slavery is just as wrong as murder, why wasn't it banned along
with murder? Why wasn't it one of the ten commandments? You say god
allowed it? If so, your god is immoral. You say that it was different
kind of slavery? I say it wasn't. Slavery is slavery. The bible
obviously thinks it's perfectly fine to beat your slave as long as he
doesn't die within a day or two. That is immoral. Your bible says it
perfectly acceptable to own another being as property. That is immoral.
Your bible says that it's perfectly acceptable to sell your daughter
into slavery. That is immoral.
You
can play all the mental gymnastics you like to justify slavery in your
own mind, but that doesn't change the facts. We know slavery is wrong.
Why doesn't your god?
"It
may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been
given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at
the utmost, only to six years;" That's not true. It clearly says in
Exodus 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go
free as male servants do." So your boy Clarke is not being very honest.
"He
becomes a willing servant for life. Not an unwilling slave for life."
And only after the master keeps his wife and children hostage.
Me: From here on I'm gonna be quoting scholars and commentators who know more about the ancient world than I.
Exodus 21:20
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
The
Jewish authorities appear to be right in referring this law, like those
in Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:32, to foreign slaves (see Leviticus
25:44-46). The protection here afforded to the life of a slave may seem
to us but a slight one; but it is the very earliest trace of such
protection in legislation, and it stands in strong and favorable
contrast with the old laws of Greece, Rome, and other nations. If the
slave survived the castigation a day or two, the master did not become
amenable to the law, because the loss of the slave was accounted, under
the circumstances, as a punishment.
Clarke's commentary
If
the slave who had been beaten by his master died under his hand, the
master was punished with death - see Genesis 9:5, Genesis 9:6. But if he
survived the beating a day or two the master was not punished, because
it might be presumed that the man died through some other cause. And all
penal laws should be construed as favourably as possible to the
accused.
Coffman's commentary
This
was a protective right granted to slaves that they should not be beaten
to death! If that seems like a small blessing to us, let it be
remembered that under the system in vogue all over the pagan world of
that era, and extending down even until apostolic times, the Roman Law,
in force all over the world, provided as a penalty against slaves, even
for trivial and unintentional violations, that shame of the whole pagan
world "flagellis ad mortera" (beaten to death),Exodus 21:26,27). Also,
there was a protective right established here for the slave-owner who
was not to be charged with murder in case a slave died under the lash,
but he was to be punished.
If
the slave, suffering such a punishment, survived even a few days and
then died, the master was held free of the penalty of punishment, the
loss of his slave being accounted a sufficient penalty.
These are sections from the link I sent you last time.
"Legal
Status : Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their
humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into
a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or
ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other
than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main
deterrent to abusive treatment.
Theoretically, some expressions of New World slavery had
some protection from outright murder of a slave, but this was not very widely
accepted:
"In the American South, 10 codes prescribed forced
sale to another owner or emancipation for maltreated slaves. Nevertheless,
cases such as State v. Hoover (North Carolina, 1839) and State v.
Jones (Alabama, 1843) were considered sensational because slave owners were
punished for savagely 'correcting' their slaves to death." [Britannica]
And the right-to-kill differed by groups [Britannica]:
"Legally the slave was usually defined as property,
and the question then was whether he was movable property (chattel) or real
property. In most societies he was movable property, but in some, real
property… A major touchstone of the nature of slave society was whether or not
the owner had the right to kill his slave. In most Neolithic and Bronze Age
societies slaves had no such right, for salves from ancient Egypt and the
Eurasian steppes were buried alive or killed to accompany their deceased owners
into the next world. Among the Northwest Coast Tlingit, slave owners killed
their slaves in potlatches to demonstrate their contempt for property and
wealth; they also killed old or unwanted slaves and threw their bodies into the
Pacific Ocean. An owner could kill his slave with impunity in Homeric Greece,
ancient India, the Roman Republic, Han China, Islamic countries, Anglo-Saxon
England, medieval Russia, and many parts of the American South before 1830…That
was not the case in other societies. The Hebrews, the Athenians, and the
Romans under the principate restricted the right of slave owners to kill their
human chattel."
Now, this restriction on an owner as to what he/she
could do with their personal 'property' should make us wonder about how the
word 'property' is being used there. And indeed, the definition of
'property'--in the context of slavery--gives Anthropologists pause:
"The
definition of slaves as property runs into
conceptual as well as empirical problems. 'Property' is a shorthand and
abstract term for a bundle of very specific and relatively exclusive rights
held by a person (or group) relative to a thing (or person). To say that in any
given society, something (say, a person) is 'property' has meaning only to the
extent that the rights involved are specified and understood
in the context
of other rights prevalent in the society. For example, in many precolonial
African societies, the kin group had
the right to sell equally its slave and
nonslave members, it had equal control over the wealth acquired by
either
of them, it extracted (or failed to extract) as much labor from one as from the
other, and
the majority of slaves were quasi-relatives or actual relatives,
and, if prosperous enough, could acquire slaves of their own. Here, obviously,
one must look at other features to find the difference between the slave and
the 'free'." [
NS:ECA:4:1191,
s.v. "Slavery"]
Sale of family peers highlight this 'oddness' of the
notion of 'property' when applied to people:
"A person would either enter into slavery or be
sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren,
brother
(with his wife and child),
sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law,
nephews and niece" [
HI:HANEL:1:665]
And this implied range of freedom/slavery can be seen
all over the ANE. Buying and Selling, for example, can be the contractual
terminology for child adoption:
"Older children were adopted by reimbursing
their parents for the expenses of feeding and raising them. These transactions
were recorded as if they were sales." [HI:DLAM:131]
and slaves had very specific legal rights (can real
'chattel property' have such?):
"Slaves had certain legal rights: they could take
part in business, borrow money, and buy their freedom." [HI:DLAM:118]
"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently
referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This
characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat
them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they
were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The
meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation
'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on
another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of
active." [HI:HANEL:1632]
"However, the idea of a slave as exclusively
the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently
alien to the laws of the ANE." [
ABD, s.v.
"Slavery, Ancient Near East"]
One other important distinction has to do with how
'comprehensive'
or
exclusive was the 'property' aspect. In other words, to what extent
was a slave
only property,
and not also, a human, a
family member, a contracting agent. In the ANE at least, slavery was generally
a
mixture of these aspects--they were not ONLY property
per se [
HI:HANEL:1.40]:
"A better criterion for a legal definition of
slavery is its property aspect, since persons were recognized as a category of
property that might be owned by private individuals. A slave was therefore a
person to whom the law of property applied rather than family or contract law. Even
this definition is not wholly exclusive,
since family and contract law occasionally intruded upon the
rules of ownership. Furthermore, the relationship between master and salve was subject
to legal restrictions based on the humanity of the slave and concerns of
social justice."
A less dramatic illustration of this might be in a
modern acquisition of one business by another business. I the employee--a
'bundle' of all my workplace obligations, the contract under which I work, the
values I am supposed to uphold, the relationships I have with co-workers at the
office, my skills, my organizational knowledge, and my career path in the
firm--is 'sold' to other owning group (e.g., competitor, private investor, Wall
Street, etc). There is, in this case, a 'property' aspect to my
life-at-the-office. This does not mean, of course, that my family status as a
dad is changed, or that I cannot vote in my country. My role and/or identity as
a worker could thus be 'sold', 'transferred', and even 'inherited' (e.g., if
the firm was privately owned, and the owner died with a successor). Our legal
system recognizes this in many, many contracts under the heading "Successors
and Assigns". But wherever I went, the state would still see me as a
human, and prevent--as in the ANE-- my 'owner' from killing me.
He also comments on the Ex. 21 passage.
"The
slave's personal dignity is also evident in the
prescriptions concerning personal injury (Ex 21.20-27)., since the punishments
for mistreatment are meant to restrain the abuse of slaves…Clearly,
the personal rights of slaves override their master's
property rights over them." [
OT:DictOT5,
s.v. "Slavery"]
Now, when I back up and look at this passage, factoring in these
observations, I note the following:
1. This passage is
unparalleled in its humanitarian considerations.
2. This passage is absolutely
anti-abuse, in the strongest sense of the term.
3. This passage is
completely parallel to the case of the freeman, under discipline by the
community.
4. This passage is
completely parallel to the case of a brawl between Hebrews:
5. It applies
primarily to the foreigner.
6. The "because
he is his property" is NOT about 'property', but about how the punitive
payment was made (economic 'silver'--lost output, increased medical expense)
7. It is a
remarkable assertion of human rights over property rights.'
He goes into more detail about foreign slaves.
"Other references
to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".
In
addition to the institution of Hebrew servanthood above, the Mosaic law has
some material on two other kinds of servant/slave-type situations: captives of
war and foreign slaves. There is not much material on these subjects, and,
given the intention of the Law to differentiate between Israel and the nations,
much of it falls into the exceptional category.
The
first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this
chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient
Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land.
Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut
2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power
that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events
occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant
disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.
But the
scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its
inhabitants would be put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9),
but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of conscription
services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city
was attacked and destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves/servants
(but the women apparently had special rights--cf. Deut 21.10ff) under the
rubric of the second case (below).
We noted
earlier in this essay that these were not 'slaves' in the proper sense of the
word, but more 'vassals' or 'serfs'.
The second
case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):
Because
the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be
sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44
"`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you;
from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary
residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and
they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as
inherited property and can make them slaves for life
God
orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the
those of foreign nations. They were:
· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations
around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from
remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small,
except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would
often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation,
but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common
"western" slavery under discussion.]
· The temporary resident situation would look more like the
Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that
case). The main difference would be the absence of the
"timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love
situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life'
(implying that it was not automatic.).
·
The temporary resident already
performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water
services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood
and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles
abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the
Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and
actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:
"`If
an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your
countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a
member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has
sold himself. (Deut 25.47)
As
such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.
·
It is not to be expected that
foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew servants,
given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along
these lines, to highlight the value of covenant membership. Some of these
include:
§ Dietary laws: Do not eat anything you find already dead.
You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or
you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God.
(Deut 14.21)
§ Cancellation of Debts: 1 At the end of every seven years
you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall
cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require
payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for
canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a
foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deut
15.1-3)
§ Interest charges: Do not charge your brother interest,
whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may
charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, (Deut 23.19ff)
This shows
that the standard for intra-Hebrew cultural practice was to be higher than
international practice (but note that foreigners could easily become members of
the assembly of Israel and participate in the covenant blessings, so this is
not an exclusion scenario at all.) And indeed, such standard cultural
priorities are meant as inducements to assimilate to the host community--they
are like a 'Benefits of Membership' brochure.
Indeed, it
must still be remembered that the nation of Israel was supposed to welcome runaway
foreign slaves with open arms (Deut 23.15).
·
The case of the female war-captives
is remarkable for its 'instant exaltation' of the woman--past slave, past
concubine, all the way to full wife(!):
"The
position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to
Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while
Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the
relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note:
concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be
her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act
of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by
way of divorce and not by sale." [OT:HLBT, 127]
·
Finally, it should be noted that the
passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically"
slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery
only an 'option'.
It
should also be recognized that the Law did make some allowance for
less-than-ideal praxis in the day (e.g. polygamy, divorce), but nevertheless
regulated these practices and placed definite limits and protections around
these areas. This foreign semi-slavery seems to have fallen into this category
as well.
But even with this class of people being 'below'
regular Hebrew slaves, there was still a God-directed humanitarian vision
required of Israel--in strong contradiction to other lands…
Let's
see some of the data which reveals this perspective.
(1)
"Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the
latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of
the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the
oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic
legislation. In two most remarkable
texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh
charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their
midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they
do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show
their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts
Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided
motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18
adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for
treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their
communities." [HI:MFBW:60]
(2)
The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major
component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the
inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and
religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any
residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished
through religious integration into the religious life of the household:
"However,
domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed
part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family
Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were
probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family
bonds)" [OT:I:101]'
The rest of what I posted was more from the website. You can go to the link and read more back and forth.
http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html It's clear he didn't actually read through the site as it answered all of his objections.
The conversation on slavery ended here. One thing I didn't get to expand upon is that the OT laws are often misread as God's attempt to right every wrong in society. And reading them this way, it's easy to think that the laws are pretty messed up by today's standard. Of course, that wasn't the purpose of the law at all. Often when people say God should right every wrong and stop all evil, they usually mean everyone worse than themselves. If God were to really do that, you'd better duck 'cause he's coming for you too. No, we don't have to guess what the purpose of the OT law was, Paul flat out tells us in Galatians.
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
The law God gave Israel was not meant to
fix their sin, but mainly to
reveal their sin and their need for a Savior.
.jpg)