How do we deal with the concept of slavery in the Old Testament?

[dmar198]

Let’s not blame Moses for what is written in Exodus 21.

I don’t think we need to blame him for it because I think this passage can be defended based on what I think it’s supposed to be: a law that gradually raises an imperfect people to a somewhat higher standard. First it removes some abuses, later it removes others. I don’t think the Law of Moses ever became perfect until Jesus came and gave us a New Law.

The Bible clearly shows this is God speaking to Moses telling him what rules to follow.

Basically, I am in agreement here. But I don’t think it follows that the law He instituted was a perfect reflection of His will. I think it left some things unpunished that God thought were sinful, such as divorce and the unequal treatment of slaves.

If God says something abominable then the blame goes to God.

If it is said in the Bible by God, then the glory goes to God, not any blame.

That in no way says that slaves should be treated as equals. In fact it presents an analogy showing the disparity in power between God and the slaveowner like the slaveowner and the slave.

I think it can show both, in the following sense: God has power over landowners in a way that is somewhat similar to how landowners sometimes have power over slaves. However, I think there is also evidence in the passage that slaves are equal to their masters in a way that man is not equal to God. Moreover, that appears to be the classic interpretation: “We cannot but admire Job’s humility, and noble sentiments of God…whose majesty will eclipse all human grandeur, and place the master and the servant on the same level. (St. Gregory; St. Augustine, City of God x. 25.) (Ephesians vi. 9., and Colossians iv. 1.)” source Have you read any of those sources?

Slaves according to the Bible have some limited rights but that doesn’t conflict with the fact that outside of those rights the slaves could be treated as property.

I don’t think the Law of Moses says that is a good thing, any more than it says the bill of divorce is a good thing, though both appear to go unpunished in at least some circumstances.

Again, slavery as described in Exodus comes straight from God and it’s entirely inaccurate to blame the law on Moses.

I don’t see anything in the passage that says the unequal treatment of slaves is okay, therefore I don’t see any blame to place on God. Severe treatment might go unpunished in some circumstances, but I don’t think that a civil law has to punish every sin in order to be good. Does that seem reasonable?

Where is the equivalant passage that shows that Jesus hates slavery?

First, I think the passage from Job still qualifies as an example of God hating the unequal treatment of slaves. I think I responded sufficiently to your objection above, and I would like to know your thoughts.

Second, I don’t think it is necessary to cite the Bible to prove that God is opposed to the unequal treatment of slaves. All we have to do is show that that is unjust, and it follows that God opposes it.

Third, I think Ephesians 6:9 is another passage that shows Jesus’ hatred of unequal treatment of slaves: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.”

Why would [God] lay out a civil law that by its very nature is immoral?

He wouldn’t. But the Law of Moses was not immoral. Do you think that a law must punish all moral crimes in order to be moral? Because I don’t think that’s the purpose of the civil law. What do you think?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t think we need to blame him for it because I think this passage can be defended based on what I think it’s supposed to be: a law that gradually raises an imperfect people to a somewhat higher standard. First it removes some abuses, later it removes others. I don’t think the Law of Moses ever became perfect until Jesus came and gave us a New Law.

These are a people in the middle of the desert. They have no slaves. They are starting fresh and God is telling them to make slaves, and sell your children into slavery, how children are born into slavery, how you can beat them viciously, etc.

It’s not removing abuses, it’s adding them. If a town lays out when and how one can rape someone then it’s allowing for rape – even if it’s lessening it.

Basically, I am in agreement here. But I don’t think it follows that the law He instituted was a perfect reflection of His will. I think it left some things unpunished that God thought were sinful, such as divorce and the unequal treatment of slaves.

Is God incapable of demonstrating his will? It’s clear that he is more than capable. It’s only when these types of passages lead to uncomfortable conclusions is God suddenly impotent at doing the right thing.

If it is said in the Bible by God, then the glory goes to God, not any blame.

Only if it is a glorious thing. If it is something monstrous then the proper term is blame.

I think it can show both, in the following sense: God has power over landowners in a way that is somewhat similar to how landowners sometimes have power over slaves. However, I think there is also evidence in the passage that slaves are equal to their masters in a way that man is not equal to God. Moreover, that appears to be the classic interpretation: “We cannot but admire Job’s humility, and noble sentiments of God…whose majesty will eclipse all human grandeur, and place the master and the servant on the same level. (St. Gregory; St. Augustine, City of God x. 25.) (Ephesians vi. 9., and Colossians iv. 1.)” source Have you read any of those sources?

Could slaves beat their masters? Could slaves roam free while keeping their masters secured? Could daughters sold to slaves force those master that bought them to have sex against their will in a way that had been done to them? You and I have a very different understanding of equality.

I don’t think the Law of Moses says that is a good thing, any more than it says the bill of divorce is a good thing, though both appear to go unpunished in at least some circumstances.

There was already a rule not to kill another person, and so this flimsy excuse to say that’s why Moses allowed for divorce doesn’t wash in the slightest…

I don’t see anything in the passage that says the unequal treatment of slaves is okay, therefore I don’t see any blame to place on God. Severe treatment might go unpunished in some circumstances, but I don’t think that a civil law has to punish every sin in order to be good. Does that seem reasonable?

I’m not saying there is an absence of denouncing a bad thing, I’m saying that what is written calls a good thing bad. It gives details on how to do it properly. It is not condemning the act itself but calling for its use It is not reasonable. It is vile and any reasonable person knows this.

First, I think the passage from Job still qualifies as an example of God hating the unequal treatment of slaves. I think I responded sufficiently to your objection above, and I would like to know your thoughts.

I think you are incorrect for the reasons I’ve stated both to you and others in this thread.

Second, I don’t think it is necessary to cite the Bible to prove that God is opposed to the unequal treatment of slaves. All we have to do is show that that is unjust, and it follows that God opposes it.

What if I said the same thing about Allah or some other deity that you don’t believe exists? You wouldn’t accept for a millisecond the idea that even though that group’s holy book calls for an evil act that its deity really is against it despite what is written. No, you can’t wipe away God’s embracing of slavery and its crueler aspects.

Third, I think Ephesians 6:9 is another passage that shows Jesus’ hatred of unequal treatment of slaves: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.”

So God changed then? Jesus came to change the law? I’m guessing you don’t agree with that.

He wouldn’t. But the Law of Moses was not immoral. Do you think that a law must punish all moral crimes in order to be moral? Because I don’t think that’s the purpose of the civil law. What do you think?

Again, you are attacking a strawman. I’m not saying that if a set of laws leaves out a punishment that it is wrong. I’m saying that if a set of laws says that a certain act is right under its deitys eyes and gives sepcific instructions and how to do so without punishment, then it claims that act is good. And if that act is morally reprehensible then the deity that calls for that act is also morally reprehensible.

 

[thinkandmull]

“When a man beats a slave but he does not die from his injuries, he isn’t to be punished, for he is his property.”

That’s in the Bible? What verse?

The Bible talks about bruising your sons ribs, but I assume that people were much sturdier back than. The quote above would allow one to go as far as he wanted without killing the slave

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

“When a man beats a slave but he does not die from his injuries, he isn’t to be punished, for he is his property.”

That’s in the Bible? What verse?

Exodus 21:20-21

Here’s several parallel translations of Exodus 21:21.

 

[Achilles6129]

I think there’s no question that God told the Israelites to take slaves in the OT. One thing that has to be kept in mind is that the Israelites treated their slaves well and that “slavery” in those times isn’t at all what it is in modern times. Nonetheless, there is no question that people groups outside of Israel were to be “forced labor” (aka slaves) for the Israelites.

I think this goes back to basic theology: God thinks that everyone who disobeys his commands is reprehensibly evil. God could exterminate them right then and there and be totally justified - instead, he says the Israelites can have them as slaves. In other words, these people that the Israelites are enslaving are reprehensibly evil people. And I think that that is God’s justification for slavery.

 

[TimothyH]

Paul’s violation of the Mosaic Code on slavery:

While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian – presumably Pheliemon. He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.”

“He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.”

Rather than give the slave sanctuary, Paul returned him to his owner. Paul seems to hint that he would like Pheliemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not actually request it. See the Letter to Philemon in the Christian Scriptures.

Paul does more than hint that Onesimus should have his freedom. He asks that Onesimus be welcomed as if he were Paul himself.

Perhaps this is why he was away from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially to me, but even more so to you, as a man and in the Lord. So if you regard me as a partner, welcome him as you would me. (Philemon 1:15-17)

Just because Paul does not say the words “give Omesimus his freedom” doesn’t mean that he doesn’t request it. Slaves were not considered men but property. Paul asks that Onesimum be treated as a man.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

Are you saying that the Bible is inaccurate or that God was misquoted?

:whacky:
Neither.
False dichotomy.

 

[clem456]

We don’t teach children to do the wrong thing and then later teach them to do the exact opposite. This idea that God taught his people to bring harm to others only to eventually ween them off of it is patently ridiculous.

Let’s just observe that you are an atheist making pronouncements on something you don’t understand.
Not a problem, everyone believes something, and I respect your beliefs.
But we can’t understand everything, and you don’t understand how the Church reads the bible.
so…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

:whacky:
Neither.
False dichotomy.

Exodus 21, which the OP referenced and which I’ve referenced several times in this thread, is entirely a quote from God speaking to Moses. You are saying it is not misquoted and is accurate, yet somehow the author of the Bible wrote it from a certain lens and perspective? A direct quote?

You might want to self-apply that googly-eyed face you gave me.

Let’s just observe that you are an atheist making pronouncements on something you don’t understand.

And how do you know that I don’t understand it?

Not a problem, everyone believes something, and I respect your beliefs.
But we can’t understand everything, and you don’t understand how the Church reads the bible. so…

You seem to think that because I don’t agree with how the Church reads the Bible that I must therefore not understand it. My position is that because I understand it I can see the many flaws with it. Have you ever studied other religions? I’ll give you the benefit and assume you have. Other religions can be as complex or more complex than christianity, but an outsider can study them. And in doing so can see where things are counter-intuitive or contradictory or morally unpleasing. If you go to a Muslim and ask why this Surah isn’t in keeping with another Surah, you wouldn’t take it that you just don’t understand. You’d want answers. That’s what I’m doing here.

Now I could be wrong and you could be right, but that’s where discussion gets involved. Show me in the points that I’ve made where I’ve erred. Don’t just look at labels and assume I know nothing about this matter.

 

[Mintaka]

Like divorce, slavery is part of the Law of Moses. As Jesus Himself said about divorce, He permitted Moses to write some laws “because of the hardness of their hearts… But in the beginning, it was not so.”

It took a while for Christianity to move society to the understanding that “in Christ there is neither slave nor free,” and eliminate slavery. Whenever times get tough or people are unscrupulous, it tends to come creeping back, and then we have to fight it again.

There’s an interesting little work by St. Jerome called “The Life of Malchus.” It’s the true story of an old monk whom Jerome interviewed, who had been captured by Bedouins and enslaved just outside Roman territory, was forced into marriage, and then escaped and got home with his “wife.” Apparently the fact he wasn’t a Roman slave made Jerome feel like he could talk a bit about the evils of slavery without explicitly saying so.

 

[clem456]

Exodus 21, which the OP referenced and which I’ve referenced several times in this thread, is entirely a quote from God speaking to Moses. You are saying it is not misquoted and is accurate, yet somehow the author of the Bible wrote it from a certain lens and perspective? A direct quote?

You might want to self-apply that googly-eyed face you gave me.

And how do you know that I don’t understand it?

You seem to think that because I don’t agree with how the Church reads the Bible that I must therefore not understand it. My position is that because I understand it I can see the many flaws with it. Have you ever studied other religions? I’ll give you the benefit and assume you have. Other religions can be as complex or more complex than christianity, but an outsider can study them. And in doing so can see where things are counter-intuitive or contradictory or morally unpleasing. If you go to a Muslim and ask why this Surah isn’t in keeping with another Surah, you wouldn’t take it that you just don’t understand. You’d want answers. That’s what I’m doing here.

Now I could be wrong and you could be right, but that’s where discussion gets involved. Show me in the points that I’ve made where I’ve erred. Don’t just look at labels and assume I know nothing about this matter.

The Catholic Church does not read the bible in a fundamentalist way.
IF you are interested, this is a good place to start:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[TimothyH]

**Like divorce, slavery is part of the Law of Moses. As Jesus Himself said about divorce, He permitted Moses to write some laws “because of the hardness of their hearts… But in the beginning, it was not so.”

It took a while for Christianity to move society to the understanding that “in Christ there is neither slave nor free,” and eliminate slavery. Whenever times get tough or people are unscrupulous, it tends to come creeping back, and then we have to fight it again.**

There’s an interesting little work by St. Jerome called “The Life of Malchus.” It’s the true story of an old monk whom Jerome interviewed, who had been captured by Bedouins and enslaved just outside Roman territory, was forced into marriage, and then escaped and got home with his “wife.” Apparently the fact he wasn’t a Roman slave made Jerome feel like he could talk a bit about the evils of slavery without explicitly saying so.

The bold/red is 100% correct.

The laws were the first attempts at controlling what had become an almost uncontrollable situation. The laws were not intended to be the final solution. Christ was the final solution. The Gospel is the final solution. Love is the final solution.

-Tim-

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Paul does more than hint that Onesimus should have his freedom. He asks that Onesimus be welcomed as if he were Paul himself.

Perhaps this is why he was away from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially to me, but even more so to you, as a man and in the Lord. So if you regard me as a partner, welcome him as you would me. (Philemon 1:15-17)

Just because Paul does not say the words “give Omesimus his freedom” doesn’t mean that he doesn’t request it. Slaves were not considered men but property. Paul asks that Onesimum be treated as a man.

-Tim-

Good points. Paul’s exhortations should also be read in the context of his circumstances - he wrote that letter from prison, where he was essentially powerless in his ability to directly intervene in the situation. Instead, he used all the God-given powers of persuasion and rhetoric he possessed to try to persuade his friend to do the right thing, alternately praising (“Hearing of thy charity and faith, which thou hast in the Lord Jesus, and towards all the saints”) cajoling ("I rather urge you out of love, being as I am, Paul, an old man, and now also a prisoner for Christ Jesus").taking personal responsibility for Onesimus’s actions (“And if he has done you any injustice or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, write this in my own hand: I will pay.”), and unsubtly reminding him that it was Paul he taught him the Gospel. ("May I not tell you that you owe me your very self.") He is doing all he could in a difficult circumstance to advance the radical proposition that Onesimus was a fellow human being, not a slave, and worthy of respect and charity and dignity (“Perhaps this is why he was away from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially to me, but even more so to you, as a man and in the Lord.”)

Did this tremendous work of persuasion work? Church tradition holds that Onesimus was freed by his owner Philemon, and went on to become Bishop of Ephesus (mentioned by St. Ignatius of Antioch). He was martyred circa 1000 A.D.

It’s one of the greatest texts ever written against slavery, in my view., and probably the oldest one. As the only epistle written to an individual rather than to one of the Churches, why else should we think it was worthy of preservation and commemoration within the canon?

 

[clem456]

The bold/red is 100% correct.

The laws were the first attempts at controlling what had become an almost uncontrollable situation. The laws were not intended to be the final solution. Christ was the final solution. The Gospel is the final solution. Love is the final solution.

-Tim-

Looking at divorce for instance, the fact that God allowed divorce to happen and be part of the law does not mean divorce was ever part of God’s desire and will for humanity.
This is a good example of the mandate to read the scriptures through the eyes of Christ. Christ himself says
“from the beginning it was not so…*Moses allowed.*you to divorce…”,
-not- “God willed and desired for you to divorce…”

If a person does not understand how the Church reads scripture, it is easy to extrapolate a sometimes cruel God who changes his mind about things halfway through human history.

God cannot violate his own nature. He is unchanging and his fullest revelation is the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is the “logos” of God, Christ makes God reason-able for us to the extent we are able.
WWJD is indeed not just a trite phrase, it is the only and fullest light we have for finding the life, the inspiration, in scripture.

 

[TimothyH]

Looking at divorce for instance, the fact that God allowed divorce to happen and be part of the law does not mean divorce was ever part of God’s desire and will for humanity.
This is a good example of the mandate to read the scriptures through the eyes of Christ. Christ himself says
“from the beginning it was not so…*Moses allowed.*you to divorce…”,
-not- “God willed and desired for you to divorce…”

If a person does not understand how the Church reads scripture, it is easy to extrapolate a sometimes cruel God who changes his mind about things halfway through human history.

God cannot violate his own nature. He is unchanging and his fullest revelation is the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is the “logos” of God, Christ makes God reason-able for us to the extent we are able.
WWJD is indeed not just a trite phrase, it is the only and fullest light we have for finding the life, the inspiration, in scripture.

Again, another perfectly accurate post.

There was no divorce before Moses. It got so bad that a husband would just kill his wife if he didn’t want to remain married. Moses allows divorce because of the hardness of their heart - their inability to forgive - as a stopgap measure. Men stopped killing their wives and wives were not murdered. The situation got better but things were far from perfect.

*You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)

**but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. *(1 Corinthians 13:10)

Only through Jesus can we become perfect. We become perfect through the law of love and forgiveness of others. Jesus’ quote from the opening line of Genesis is the key to understanding all this.

***I the beginning it was not so. ***

Jesus wants to take us back to the way it was 'in the beginning", in the garden, before sin entered the world.

-Tim-

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Catholic Church does not read the bible in a fundamentalist way.
IF you are interested, this is a good place to start:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

As I mentioned I’m already quite aware how the Catholic Church does not treat the entire Bible literally. For example they don’t assume Genesis 1 refers to six literal days, but as a demonstration of his creation of the universe (however it may have occurred). Each part of the Bible is supposed to be true in some way. If Exodus 21, which again is a direct quote from God to Moses you say is not a misquote, is not to be read literally then what is the figurative meaning of it? What benefit comes from the enslavement of children?

Also as I’ve mentioned Exodus 20 through the first part of Exodus 24 is all a single conversation. It’s God giving numerous rules to Moses to pass on to his people, including things like what to do if a man doesn’t cover a pit and a neighbor’s ox falls in. What is the figurative meaning of civil law like that. Also as part of this same conversation are The Ten Commandments. If you are saying that we should not treat Exodus 21 literally then by that reasoning we should not treat The Ten Commandments literally.

You’re not addressing the points I’ve made, but I’d be interested if you did. Please don’t bury your head in the sand regarding the problem of Biblical slavery and expect us to accept that as a solution.

 

[clem456]

As I mentioned I’m already quite aware how the Catholic Church does not treat the entire Bible literally. For example they don’t assume Genesis 1 refers to six literal days, but as a demonstration of his creation of the universe (however it may have occurred). Each part of the Bible is supposed to be true in some way. If Exodus 21, which again is a direct quote from God to Moses you say is not a misquote,
(I didn’t say that) and I’m trying imagine your man taking down “quotes” from God with his…
tape recorder? notepad? You read the bible in a more fundamentalist way than fundamentalists. Fundamentalists always insist the bible says what they want it to say in rigid terms, and that is what you are doing. Which is no problem, you can read it the way you want, but I have to wonder why, when you seem to think slavery is evil, you aggressively castigate Christians, who have done a lot to abolish slavery. That’s puzzling… is not to be read literally then what is the figurative meaning of it? What benefit comes from the enslavement of children?

Also as I’ve mentioned Exodus 20 through the first part of Exodus 24 is all a single conversation. It’s God giving numerous rules to Moses to pass on to his people, including things like what to do if a man doesn’t cover a pit and a neighbor’s ox falls in. What is the figurative meaning of civil law like that. Also as part of this same conversation are The Ten Commandments. If you are saying that we should not treat Exodus 21 literally then by that reasoning we should not treat The Ten Commandments literally.

You’re not addressing the points I’ve made, but I’d be interested if you did. Please don’t bury your head in the sand regarding the problem of Biblical slavery and expect us to accept that as a solution.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

(I didn’t say that) and I’m trying imagine your man taking down “quotes” from God with his…
tape recorder? notepad? You read the bible in a more fundamentalist way than fundamentalists. Fundamentalists always insist the bible says what they want it to say in rigid terms, and that is what you are doing. Which is no problem, you can read it the way you want, but I have to wonder why, when you seem to think slavery is evil, you aggressively castigate Christians, who have done a lot to abolish slavery. That’s puzzling…

I asked you if God had been misquoted or if the Bible was inaccurate. Your response: “Neither” That tells me that you feel that Exodus 21 was an accurate quote of God. Is it or is it not what God said?

My problem isn’t with Christians, a portion of which tried to abolish slavery, but with the God of the Bible and his endorsement of the practice. Enough with the strawmen, please.

 

[clem456]

I asked you if God had been misquoted or if the Bible was inaccurate. Your response: “Neither” That tells me that you feel that Exodus 21 was an accurate quote of God. Is it or is it not what God said?

My problem isn’t with Christians, a portion of which tried to abolish slavery, but with the God of the Bible and his endorsement of the practice. Enough with the strawmen, please.

A portion of atheists killed tens of millions of people, so…I guess atheist teaching (is there such a thing?) advocates for mass murder.

The God of the bible?
Catholics do not believe God is a book.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

A portion of atheists killed tens of millions of people, so…I guess atheist teaching (is there such a thing?) advocates for mass murder.

The God of the bible?
Catholics do not believe God is a book.

I didn’t say God is a book, and I can’t believe I actually have to explain that to someone.

When someone uses the term “God of the Bible” they refer to Jehovah, Adonai, Yahweh – whichever name you want to use for the god of Christianity – as opposed to the god of the Jains or Islam or any of the multitude of other gods. It also means that we’re paying special attention to what that god says and does in the Bible.

Now that this has been explained, maybe you can answer any of the questions I’ve proposed starting with: Do you or do you not think that what is said in Exodus 21 was accurate? If not, why did you earlier say that Exodus 21 was not a mistranslation?