Does the Bible condone slavery?

[Butterbean]

Interesting commentary from www.gotquestions.org.


Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"

Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as if it was something of the past. It is estimated that there are today 12.3 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. For more information, please visit - http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery.

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – many slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God, receiving His salvation – God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.

[Deicide]

Interesting commentary from www.gotquestions.org.


Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"

Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as if it was something of the past. It is estimated that there are today 12.3 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. For more information, please visit - http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery.

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – many slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God, receiving His salvation – God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.

Terrible apologetics. 

[Butterbean]

Terrible apologetics. 

Why do you say that?

[Deicide]

Why do you say that?

Because Christians always come up with these silly rationalisations, such as 'it was appropriate for the time' or 'it is not a handbook on social conduct but a manual on salvation'. Slavery is condoned as a normal part of society in botht the OT and the NT. It is an acceptable practice. It is a different question, what one chooses to do with that information, however.

[Migs]

slavery was a necessary evil.

[MCWAY]

Because Christians always come up with these silly rationalisations, such as 'it was appropriate for the time' or 'it is not a handbook on social conduct but a manual on salvation'. Slavery is condoned as a normal part of society in botht the OT and the NT. It is an acceptable practice. It is a different question, what one chooses to do with that information, however.

That's not what the article says. There's a world of difference between the "slavery" mentioned in the Bible and chattel slavery, as we've come to know it (i.e. what was done to black people).

For starters, people could indenture themselves to others to pay off debt. An example of this was Jacob serving his uncle, Laban, for 7 years to pay the dowry for Laban's daughter, Rachel, whom Jacob wanted as his wife.

In the kingdom of Israel, one could only be a "slave" for 7 years max, barring some unusual circumstance. And, God constantly reminded the Israelites, that they needed to treat their servants with kindness and fairness, reminding them of the harsh treatment they received in Egypt.

Deut. 12:12-15

"If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. When you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed.  You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. 

Ex. 22:21

You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.


Another MAJOR difference is the treatment of women. It's no secret that, when blacks were brought to America, the white masters raped black women virtually without conscience. In fact, it was considered a hospitality among the affluent of society. Such behavior certainly was not viable in the Bible. And, to top it all off, the very method by which chattel slavery was enacted (namely, snatching black people from Africa and taking them England or America) was absolutely condemned. In fact, it was a capital offense.

Ex. 21:16

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

Here is more elaboration on the issue:



Accordingly, I think--to avoid the inflammatory associations that naturally occur for Westerners when something is referred to as 'slavery'--it wise to carefully set out the structure of what we consider 'slavery' today, and compare that to the OT institution of 'Hebrew slavery'. New World slavery differs substantially from most ANE institutions labeled 'slavery', which themselves differed at significant points from OT slavery. We will try to make these distinctions clear, when they are relevant to the discussion.

With this in mind, I want to set out the basic elements associated with historical slavery, as practiced in America before the American Civil War, and to offer some general contrasts with ANE slavery (I will look at OT slavery later in the article). (This is not meant to be exhaustive, but simply to highlight the aspects of the institution that strike our sensibilities today.)



·        Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.

So, [NS:ECA:4:1190] point this out: "New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market." and Britannica: "By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton...the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States." (s.v. "Slavery")

In the ANE (and OT), this was NOT the case. The dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).

The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery. A smattering of quotes will indicate this for-the-poor instead of for-the-rich purpose for most of ANE slavery:



§         "Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been (originally) debt slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)



§         "Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, called hapiru (immigrants) who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was the cause of these agreements…" (1.585)



§         "Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery [in Emar] are by reason of debt or famine or both…A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave." (1.664f)



§         "On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for provisions…" (1.741)



§         "The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale. All these case clearly arose from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue." (1.199)



·        Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.

This was true both for the Islamic slave trade and the European trade. So, Britannica:

"Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world. Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905. In the second half of the 15th century Europeans began to trade along the west coast of Africa, and by 1867 between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 Africans had been shipped as slaves to the New World.... The relationship between African and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors."



http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

[MCWAY]

(Continued)



In the ANE (and especially the OT), the opposite was the case. This should be obvious from the MOTIVE aspect--these were choices by the impoverished to enter this dependency state, in return for economic security and protection. Some slavery contracts actually emphasized this voluntary aspect!:

"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…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]

This might also be seen from the fact that war/violence was NOT a major source of 'real' slaves in the ANE (nor OT). For example, even though there were large numbers of war-captives in the ANE, they were generally NOT turned into slaves, but rather into tenant-farming, serfs:

"Within all the periods of antiquity, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite, Persian, and other Oriental rulers carried away great masses of captives from their victorious battles. But only an insignificant part of them was turned into slaves; all the others were settled on the land as palace and temple serfs….The question arises, why the masses of war prisoners were not enslaved. Slavery was the optimal form of dependence, and very often there was no shortage of prisoners captured in war. Besides, there were no legal or ethical norms preventing these prisoners from being turned into slaves. But this happened in a negligible percentage of cases, while the overwhelming majority were settled in places specially set aside for them, paid royal taxes, and carried out obligations, including military service." [ABD: s.v. "Slavery, ANE"]

"War is only mentioned as a source of slavery for public institutions. The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and  grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale." [HI:HANEL:1.199]

The same, of course, can be said of Israel. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:

"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.



·        Treatment : Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.

The images we have of the Old American South are filled with mistreatments, and we need no documentation of that here. The ANE, on the other hand, was much less severe, due largely to the differences in the attitudes of the 'master' to the 'slave'. Slavery in the ANE was much more an 'in-house' and 'in-family' thing, with closer emotional attachment. However, there were still some extreme punishments in the ANE, but the biblical witness is of a decidedly better environment for slaves than even the ANE. Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves, and we shall return to this in detail below. [Suffice it to mention here that Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word 'property' might mean in such a context! But more on this in a minute…]

But in the ANE slaves were generally protected from over-abuse (under normal conditions, runaways were a problem, as we shall see):

"[Slaves were generally afforded protection from] Excessive Physical punishment. Even chattel slaves appear to have benefited to some extent from this protection" [HI:HANEL:1:43]

And all the records of the period seem to indicate humane treatment:

"First, let us set apart the slaves--the booty of war or in servitude for various reasons--who by definition were totally dependent on their masters, although the latter appear to have treated them fairly humanely, and more like domestic servants." [HI:ELAM, 114]

[OzmO]

So the term "slave" in the Bible has a different meaning?

[MCWAY]

So the term "slave" in the Bible has a different meaning?

If, by "different meaning", you're referring to something other than indefinite forced servitude (as was the case with chattel slavery with blacks), the answer is "Yes".

[Butterbean]

Yes, a different meaning than the one we typically think of. 

And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.

[OzmO]

If, by "different meaning", you're referring to something other than indefinite forced servitude (as was the case with chattel slavery with blacks), the answer is "Yes".

so why is it still termed as "slaves" if it's not the same meaning?

[Butterbean]

so why is it still termed as "slaves" if it's not the same meaning?

Not sure but maybe English doesn't have an appropriate word to define the term?


(www.christian-thinktank.com

"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]




"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."


"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]



hmm.. according to this "slave" was a def. that covered many diff. people according to their status

[MCWAY]

so why is it still termed as "slaves" if it's not the same meaning?

That may be more of a culture thing. For example, in the gospel of John (KJV), it states that 100 pounds of spices were brought to anoint Jesus' body. When you hear the word, "pound", you usually think 16 ounce-measurement. Well, the Greek word for "pound" is litra.

Since the Greek version reads "ἑκατόν λίτρα (hekatron litra)", it translated into "100 pounds" in English.

John 19:39 (KJV)

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

But, in more contemporary translations (i.e. the New Living Translation [NLT]), it says "75 pounds".

John 19:39 (NLT)
Nicodemus, the man who had come to Jesus at night, also came, bringing about seventy-five pounds of embalming ointment made from myrrh and aloes.

The reason for this is because a Greek "pound" (litra) is 11.5 ounces, which most round up to 12 ounces; whereas, a U.S. pound is 16 ounces. Therefore, 100 litras (Greek) is about 75 pounds (U.S.).

A similar thing applies to the word, "mile". A U.S. "mile" is 5,280 ft.; a Roman "mile" is only about 4,500 ft.

So, just as what comes to our minds, when we hear the word, "pound", or "mile" is different from what the ancient Greeks and Romans thought when they heard the word, "pound" or "mile", what the people in OT times defined as "slave" and what we think, when we hear the term, "slave", are different.

[The Luke]

I think McWay and Stella are both making the mistake of wishfully filtering the facts here...


Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.

The FACTS:
-ancient Hebrew peoples practiced BOTH indentured servitude and chattel slavery
-Hebrew slaves were in effect indentured servants and subject to a seven year maximum term; severance pay and basic human rights
-non-Hebrew (Gentile/barbarian) slaves were chattel slaves: no human rights and slaves for life
-non-Hebrew female slaves were in effect sex slaves

Women fell somewhere between the two. They could be sold and were in effect servants for life, but did receive basic human rights, although they had no rights over their own sexual consent.


There are plenty of examples in the Bible of both women and (Gentile) slaves being treated abominably... and many examples of women and (Gentile) slaves being treated as expendable property, even being handed over as rape surrogates (Lott's daughters for example).

The thing such Christian apologists always neglect to mention is that Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews.

"Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"...Yahweh demands the lives of all the people of Canaan for example; the Canaanite children specifically are to have their brains dashed out to appease Yahweh's blood lust.
 
"Thou shalt not steal" means "Thou shalt not steal from a fellow Jew"...but you can steal the lands/wives/slaves/children/goods of the Canaanites and the Philistines.

The reason Abraham is willing to go along with Yahweh's (then a storm god) demand to make a burnt offering sacrifice of his son Isaac (?) is because child sacrifice was NOT uncommon among Jews at the time. The interdiction on killing in the Ten Commandments was not understood to extend to sacrifice, which was not considered a form of murder.



The Luke

[loco]

I think McWay and Stella are both making the mistake of wishfully filtering the facts here...


Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.

The FACTS:
-ancient Hebrew peoples practiced BOTH indentured servitude and chattel slavery
-Hebrew slaves were in effect indentured servants and subject to a seven year maximum term; severance pay and basic human rights
-non-Hebrew (Gentile/barbarian) slaves were chattel slaves: no human rights and slaves for life
-non-Hebrew female slaves were in effect sex slaves

Women fell somewhere between the two. They could be sold and were in effect servants for life, but did receive basic human rights, although they had no rights over their own sexual consent.


There are plenty of examples in the Bible of both women and (Gentile) slaves being treated abominably... and many examples of women and (Gentile) slaves being treated as expendable property, even being handed over as rape surrogates (Lott's daughters for example).

The thing such Christian apologists always neglect to mention is that Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews.

"Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"...Yahweh demands the lives of all the people of Canaan for example; the Canaanite children specifically are to have their brains dashed out to appease Yahweh's blood lust.
 
"Thou shalt not steal" means "Thou shalt not steal from a fellow Jew"...but you can steal the lands/wives/slaves/children/goods of the Canaanites and the Philistines.

The reason Abraham is willing to go along with Yahweh's (then a storm god) demand to make a burnt offering sacrifice of his son Isaac (?) is because child sacrifice was NOT uncommon among Jews at the time. The interdiction on killing in the Ten Commandments was not understood to extend to sacrifice, which was not considered a form of murder.



The Luke

As usual, The Luke pulling "The Facts" out of his butt, while providing no sources or references.

So, based on your post above("Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews"), God has a problem with Jews being homosexuals, but Gentiles can flame away to their hearts desire?   

[Deicide]

I think McWay and Stella are both making the mistake of wishfully filtering the facts here...


Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.

The FACTS:
-ancient Hebrew peoples practiced BOTH indentured servitude and chattel slavery
-Hebrew slaves were in effect indentured servants and subject to a seven year maximum term; severance pay and basic human rights
-non-Hebrew (Gentile/barbarian) slaves were chattel slaves: no human rights and slaves for life
-non-Hebrew female slaves were in effect sex slaves

Women fell somewhere between the two. They could be sold and were in effect servants for life, but did receive basic human rights, although they had no rights over their own sexual consent.


There are plenty of examples in the Bible of both women and (Gentile) slaves being treated abominably... and many examples of women and (Gentile) slaves being treated as expendable property, even being handed over as rape surrogates (Lott's daughters for example).

The thing such Christian apologists always neglect to mention is that Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews.

"Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"...Yahweh demands the lives of all the people of Canaan for example; the Canaanite children specifically are to have their brains dashed out to appease Yahweh's blood lust.
 
"Thou shalt not steal" means "Thou shalt not steal from a fellow Jew"...but you can steal the lands/wives/slaves/children/goods of the Canaanites and the Philistines.

The reason Abraham is willing to go along with Yahweh's (then a storm god) demand to make a burnt offering sacrifice of his son Isaac (?) is because child sacrifice was NOT uncommon among Jews at the time. The interdiction on killing in the Ten Commandments was not understood to extend to sacrifice, which was not considered a form of murder.



The Luke

None of them can pull out a single non-apologist piece of information; astounding really...

[OzmO]

So slavey in the bible contained both definitions?

[The Luke]

So, based on your post above("Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews"), God has a problem with Jews being homosexuals, but Gentiles can flame away to their hearts desire?   

...exactly.

Once beyond the actual "reach" of the god-box (Ark of the Covenant) that physically contained the storm god Yahweh, Jews weren't even required to pray to Yahweh. He was considered a localised deity.

That's why when the Judges ran Israel they openly worshiped the local (Canaanite) child-sacrifice demanding god Baal... because they were living beyond the reach of Yahweh, while he was housed in his box on the mountain of Jebul Madbh (Mount Sinai) in the Valley of Edom (Petra in modern day Jordan).

Proof of this is there for everyone to read in the Book of Judges... some of the Israelite leaders have names such as Jerubaal ("Glory of Baal").



The Luke

[MCWAY]

As usual, The Luke pulling "The Facts" out of his butt, while providing no sources or references.

AMEN!!!! 

So, based on your post above("Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews"), God has a problem with Jews being homosexuals, but Gentiles can flame away to their hearts desire?   

Of course not!!! As usual, Luke's lack of accuracy is in full display.

I think McWay and Stella are both making the mistake of wishfully filtering the facts here...


Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.

The FACTS:
-ancient Hebrew peoples practiced BOTH indentured servitude and chattel slavery
-Hebrew slaves were in effect indentured servants and subject to a seven year maximum term; severance pay and basic human rights
-non-Hebrew (Gentile/barbarian) slaves were chattel slaves: no human rights and slaves for life
-non-Hebrew female slaves were in effect sex slaves

Women fell somewhere between the two. They could be sold and were in effect servants for life, but did receive basic human rights, although they had no rights over their own sexual consent.


There are plenty of examples in the Bible of both women and (Gentile) slaves being treated abominably... and many examples of women and (Gentile) slaves being treated as expendable property, even being handed over as rape surrogates (Lott's daughters for example).

The thing such Christian apologists always neglect to mention is that Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews.

"Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"...Yahweh demands the lives of all the people of Canaan for example; the Canaanite children specifically are to have their brains dashed out to appease Yahweh's blood lust.
 
"Thou shalt not steal" means "Thou shalt not steal from a fellow Jew"...but you can steal the lands/wives/slaves/children/goods of the Canaanites and the Philistines.

The reason Abraham is willing to go along with Yahweh's (then a storm god) demand to make a burnt offering sacrifice of his son Isaac (?) is because child sacrifice was NOT uncommon among Jews at the time. The interdiction on killing in the Ten Commandments was not understood to extend to sacrifice, which was not considered a form of murder.



The Luke

Ummm.......NO!! First of all, lest you forgot, Abraham DID NOT sacrifice Isaac; a ram was used in his place. Furthermore, the Israelites were SPECIFICALLY BANNED from performing human sacrifice.

Deut. 12:29-31:

When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;

Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

Not only did God not want the Isralites to worship other gods, He did not want them to worship Him the way their neighbors worshipped their deites, which included, among other things, human sacrifice.

Furthermore, if you look at the book of Leviticus, you will see the hiearchy for what sacrifices are acceptable, based on the financial situation of those offering it. Usually, it goes from cattle to sheep to birds. Conspicously absent from that list is PEOPLE.

As for your claim about non-Hebrews being treated as chattel, that's woefully inaccurate, as well.

Lev. 19:34

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

That was mentioned earlier, as was (from the Christian ThinkTank link):


   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.......

[MCWAY]

As far as the rights of women were concerned:





•        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 Luke]

McWay,


You've just illustrated my point for me:

Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.

...you answered this with a copy and paste that includes a quotation of God's command that the Israelites may take non-Israelites as "slaves for life".

Do you even read the articles you copy and paste?



You even quoted Yahweh's proscription against Israelites worshiping Baal with human sacrifice... don't you realise what questions immediately follow from such a quote:

1-Why did the Israelites need to be told NOT to perform human sacrifice, if they indeed didn't practice it?

2-Why didn't Abraham quote such a proscription against human sacrifice in his defense when God asked him to make a burnt offering of Isaac? (Could it be that such proscription wasn't in force in Abraham's time?... as archaeologists insist it wasn't.)

3-Why are some of the Judges (Book of Judges) named after the heathen child-sacrifice demanding god Baal? Isn't it obvious that the Jews were openly worshiping Baal when beyond the reach of their boxed god?



Chronic apologetics.



The Luke

[MCWAY]

McWay,


You've just illustrated my point for me:
...you answered this with a copy and paste that includes a quotation of God's command that the Israelites may take non-Israelites as "slaves for life".

Do you even read the articles you copy and paste?



You even quoted Yahweh's proscription against Israelites worshiping Baal with human sacrifice... don't you realise what questions immediately follow from such a quote:

1-Why did the Israelites need to be told NOT to perform human sacrifice, if they indeed didn't practice it?

Because, boy genius, the verse I used clearly states that the Israelites WERE NOT to worship God, as their neighbors worshipped their deities. That means you don’t copy the folks that use human sacrifice.

2-Why didn't Abraham quote such a proscription against human sacrifice in his defense when God asked him to make a burnt offering of Isaac? (Could it be that such proscription wasn't in force in Abraham's time?... as archaeologists insist it wasn't.)

At the end of the day, God STOPPED Abe from doing that. And apparently, Abe had the confidence to believe the Lord would provide a way out, as he told his men that both he and Isaac would return.

3-Why are some of the Judges (Book of Judges) named after the heathen child-sacrifice demanding god Baal? Isn't it obvious that the Jews were openly worshiping Baal when beyond the reach of their boxed god?

Israel's falling into apostasy is well-documented. The point, of course, is that they were going AGAINST God's instruction. If God directed them to engage in human sacrifice, He would have had guidelines on how to prep humans, as He does in the book of Leviticus, with livestock. Guess what....NO SUCH PROVISIONS are there.

Why? Because human sacrifice was a no-no!!

Chronic apologetics.



The Luke

More like chronic buffoonery, on your part.

[The Luke]

More like chronic buffoonery, on your part.

...so, the ancient Israelites:
-DID INDEED practice human sacrifice, but that doesn't count because they did so in worship of Baal rather than Yahweh.
-DID INDEED practice chattel slavery, but that doesn't count either because they also practiced indentured servitude among their own people.
-DID INDEED practice genocide, but that doesn't count because they only waged one genocidal pogrom war against the nation of Canaan and once all the Canaanites were either slaughtered or sold into slavery they never again fought an aggressive war against their neighbors.

Now that I understand your position, it's probably time for me to restate my original point:

Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.

...so in conclusion: YES... YES the Bible does indeed condone slavery.

Even Jesus himself condoned slavery, albeit in a tacit way... a sort of sin of omission.


The Luke

[Deicide]

...so, the ancient Israelites:
-DID INDEED practice human sacrifice, but that doesn't count because they did so in worship of Baal rather than Yahweh.
-DID INDEED practice chattel slavery, but that doesn't count either because they also practiced indentured servitude among their own people.
-DID INDEED practice genocide, but that doesn't count because they only waged one genocidal pogrom war against the nation of Canaan and once all the Canaanites were either slaughtered or sold into slavery they never again fought an aggressive war against their neighbors.

Now that I understand your position, it's probably time for me to restate my original point:

...so in conclusion: YES... YES the Bible does indeed condone slavery.

Even Jesus himself condoned slavery, albeit in a tacit way... a sort of sin of omission.


The Luke

Epic Waste of Time...

[MCWAY]

...so, the ancient Israelites:
-DID INDEED practice human sacrifice, but that doesn't count because they did so in worship of Baal rather than Yahweh.

They were instructed NOT to engage in human sacrifice (not to God, or any other deity). Any indication that they did such was a flagrant act of disobedience. But, their wickedness is well-documented:


Jdg 2:11 - And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim

Jdg 3:7 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgot the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the groves. 


Jdg 10:6 - And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the LORD, and served not him. 

Jdg 13:1 - And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years.

-DID INDEED practice chattel slavery, but that doesn't count either because they also practiced indentured servitude among their own people.

And, the chapter and verse for this would be........(once again, your inherent lack of giving the specifics rears its ugly head).

On the other hand,

This potential forced enslavement seems to run counter to most of the provisions for the widows in Israel, and as such would not be in the spirit of the Law in the least! (A similar situation occurs in Neh 5.5, where the Israelites are being economically forced to sell their sons and daughters to simply maintain their living and homestead.)
 
 

·        The attempted enslavement of 200,000 Judeans! (2 Chrn 28.8-15).

The Israelites took captive from their kinsmen two hundred thousand wives, sons and daughters. They also took a great deal of plunder, which they carried back to Samaria. 9 But a prophet of the LORD named Oded was there, and he went out to meet the army when it returned to Samaria. He said to them, "Because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand. But you have slaughtered them in a rage that reaches to heaven. 10 And now you intend to make the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem your slaves. But aren't you also guilty of sins against the LORD your God? 11 Now listen to me! Send back your fellow countrymen you have taken as prisoners, for the LORD's fierce anger rests on you." 12 Then some of the leaders in Ephraim -- Azariah son of Jehohanan, Berekiah son of Meshillemoth, Jehizkiah son of Shallum, and Amasa son of Hadlai -- confronted those who were arriving from the war. 13 "You must not bring those prisoners here," they said, "or we will be guilty before the LORD. Do you intend to add to our sin and guilt? For our guilt is already great, and his fierce anger rests on Israel." 14 So the soldiers gave up the prisoners and plunder in the presence of the officials and all the assembly. 15 The men designated by name took the prisoners, and from the plunder they clothed all who were naked. They provided them with clothes and sandals, food and drink, and healing balm. All those who were weak they put on donkeys. So they took them back to their fellow countrymen at Jericho, the City of Palms, and returned to Samaria.

In this passage we see a victorious Northern Kingdom of Israel taking "war captives" of the Southern Kindgom of Judah. The prophet speaks for God and specifically condemns the practice.

·        The abuse of the poor by the elite in the Southern Kingdom (Amos)

Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land, 5 saying, "When will the New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?" -- skimping the measure, boosting the price and cheating with dishonest scales, 6 buying the poor with silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, selling even the sweepings with the wheat. (Amos 8.4ff)

One can see here that the ruling elite had begun to exploit and abuse the poor--just another example of how we tend to take acceptable structures and exploit them for selfish ends. No exception here. The fact that the prophets consistently rebuke these oppressive practices should indicate that God NEVER intended them for His people at all!

-DID INDEED practice genocide, but that doesn't count because they only waged one genocidal pogrom war against the nation of Canaan and once all the Canaanites were either slaughtered or sold into slavery they never again fought an aggressive war against their neighbors.

It appears you need to brush up on your Biblical history. Israel drove the Canaanites out of their land, due to (among other things) their practice of such things as human sacrifice. Unfortunately, as Scripture also indicates, the Israelites disobeyed God's laws and undertook the very practices that the Caananites and other folks around them did, to the point that their wickedness exceeded that of their neighbors.

Now that I understand your position, it's probably time for me to restate my original point:

...so in conclusion: YES... YES the Bible does indeed condone slavery.

Even Jesus himself condoned slavery, albeit in a tacit way... a sort of sin of omission.


The Luke

Your conclusion is, as usual, feebly inaccurate.