What is there to say about slavery and the Bible? Especially the Old Testament? (MERGED)

[Elena321]

In

I think bondslavery is morally acceptable.

Not slavery in the 18th century sense. There is an enormous difference.

I am even in a kind of bond slavery. I have to pay an enormous student debt. It’s forcibly removed from my income

But even if a person thinks bondslavery is acceptable,its never acceptable to beat someone.
Even if i have someone lazy work for me i cant just beat them lol.
Maybe they still do this in Phillipines or something but Christians would say its wrong no?
So why not God say it wrong before?

 

[Elena321]

Are you trying to ask…why did god allow slavery at all? Or just, why did god allow the bible writers to write about it?

These things are in the bible, because this is how people were living at that time–this is what they believed in and followed.
And the stories and laws written about in the Judeo-Christian bible are about what was going on at the time the stories were written.

.

Im more asking why God didn’t tell them not to have slaves (or at very least not to beat them) when he did give instructions not to do certain other things.

 

[dmar198]

But even if a person thinks bondslavery is acceptable,its never acceptable to beat someone.
Even if i have someone lazy work for me i cant just beat them lol.
Maybe they still do this in Phillipines or something but Christians would say its wrong no?
So why not God say it wrong before?

God did say it was wrong. Job 31:13-15 says that slaves are our equals and should be treated as equals. It says that if they even have a complaint, God will rise up and judge the one who mistreated them. Since God says in the Old Testament that they are to be treated as equals, to the point where if they have a complaint, their master will be judged by God, that excludes all mistreatment.

I don’t see how people can keep missing this, especially Mike from NJ. God specifically excludes all mistreatment of slaves by recalling their equality. The Law of Moses may tolerate mistreating slaves, but God does not, and He says so clearly in the Book of Job: if you do it, you’ll be judged. Job 31:13-15.

Mike from NJ and other atheist posters keep wanting to pretend that if something is tolerated in the Law of Moses, then it is cleared by God. That’s just not true according to the Old Testament. God called divorce a grave sin, even though the Law of Moses tolerated it. God called it a grave sin not to treat your servants as your equals, but the Law of Moses tolerated it. The Law of Moses itself makes it clear that there is a higher law than itself, and that is the moral law of God. So why does Mike from NJ keep pretending that the Law of Moses has an ideal justice system in God’s eyes? The God of the Old Testament explicitly forbade many of the things the Mosaic Law permitted, including mistreatment of slaves. Do you admit this, Mike, or are you just pretending not to see it so you can keep your misguided attack on God for “okaying” things He actually forbade?

 

[TimothyH]

Remember two things:

1. These instructions were given by God while the Hebrews were wandering the desert after leaving Egypt. They had no slaves at the time. The theory that this not-as-awful slavery would be a gradual change for the Hebrews doesn’t hold water in the slightest.
2. God commanded the Hebrews to perform several acts that only they performed (e.g. honoring the Sabbath) or that only some neighboring cultures practiced (e,g, circumcision). These commands were made without regard to the culture at the time.

Theologians such as Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins would disagree with your statement about “not holding water in the slightest” because they both teach it in their Bible studies.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had slaves before they went into Egypt anyway.

-Tim-

 

[dmar198]

God did say it was wrong. Job 31:13-15 says that slaves are our equals and should be treated as equals. It says that if they even have a complaint, God will rise up and judge the one who mistreated them. Since God says in the Old Testament that they are to be treated as equals, to the point where if they have a complaint, their master will be judged by God, that excludes all mistreatment.

I don’t see how people can keep missing this, especially Mike from NJ. God specifically excludes all mistreatment of slaves by recalling their equality. The Law of Moses may tolerate mistreating slaves, but God does not, and He says so clearly in the Book of Job: if you do it, you’ll be judged. Job 31:13-15.

Mike from NJ and other atheist posters keep wanting to pretend that if something is tolerated in the Law of Moses, then it is cleared by God. That’s just not true according to the Old Testament. God called divorce a grave sin, even though the Law of Moses tolerated it. God called it a grave sin not to treat your servants as your equals, but the Law of Moses tolerated it. The Law of Moses itself makes it clear that there is a higher law than itself, and that is the moral law of God. So why does Mike from NJ keep pretending that the Law of Moses has an ideal justice system in God’s eyes? The God of the Old Testament explicitly forbade many of the things the Mosaic Law permitted, including mistreatment of slaves. Do you admit this, Mike, or are you just pretending not to see it so you can keep your misguided attack on God for “okaying” things He actually forbade?

I’m sorry, as the author of the post quoted, I think I may be being unfair in it. I interpret Job 31 as a condemnation of mistreating people, including servants, and I am expecting others to share that interpretation and the conclusions I draw from it. I do believe my interpretation has good reasons for it, but I don’t think the Church requires anyone to accept my interpretation, so perhaps I shouldn’t be so sassy about it. Mike, do you think I’ve misinterpreted these verses, or how do you read them?

 

[Tomdstone]

The Law of Moses may tolerate mistreating slaves, but God does not, and He says so clearly in the Book of Job: if you do it, you’ll be judged. Job 31:13-15.

What do you see as the relationship between the Law of God and the Mosaic Law?

 

[dmar198]

What do you see as the relationship between the Law of God and the Mosaic Law?

I think the Law of God is a perfect, eternal, unchanging revelation about what is right and wrong, while the Mosaic Law was an imperfect, temporary, modifiable civil law including some basic rules for preventing anarchy among a barbaric people and some prophetic ceremonies which set them apart from the Gentiles. I think the Mosaic Law was a relative improvement over the other laws of the ancient Middle East and contains many pointers to the higher, moral Law of God. But it also leaves some egregious evils unpunished due to the hardness of men’s hearts. This shows the imperfection of the Law, but it also shows that God did not give up on a very wicked people, but gave them decrees to assist them toward a higher plane, thus revealing God’s mercy.

I think a man under the Old Covenant would commit a sin if he divorced his wife and married another (cf. Malachi 2:14-16), even though the Law of Moses lets him under certain conditions. This is because the Law of Moses was not intended to punish all moral crimes, only some civil crimes. Its imperfect laws reflected the hard hearts of the Israelites but did manage to give some basic protections for the victims of moral wickedness, such as divorced women, who got a certificate which they could use to show that they had not left their husband but had been sent away.

Similarly, I think a man under the Old Covenant would commit a sin if he treated a servant as anything less than his equal or even gave him matter for complaint (cf. Job 31:13-15), even though the Law of Moses seems to tolerate such wickedness under certain conditions. I think it had an imperfect law re slavery that reflected the hard hearts of the Israelites but did manage to give some basic protections for the slaves, who were victims of moral wickedness, but who got several important rights including the right to life and the right to days of rest and access to freedom.

 

[mikekle]

biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

“New International Version
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,…”

Deutoronomy:
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

**It sounds like it was a very paternalistic society.It reminds me of some muslim societies still today.
Ie;the spreading of the cloth to prove the womans virginity,the assumption that if a women didn’t scream it was cause she wanted/enjoying it etc…

What is a modern day women meant to make of all this?**

Well, in modern times, women are STILL taught to scream fire, rather than help or rape, it seems NO ONE will come to their aid when those things are heard, but FIRE…everyone comes running!!!

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

God did say it was wrong. Job 31:13-15 says that slaves are our equals and should be treated as equals. It says that if they even have a complaint, God will rise up and judge the one who mistreated them. Since God says in the Old Testament that they are to be treated as equals, to the point where if they have a complaint, their master will be judged by God, that excludes all mistreatment.

I don’t see how people can keep missing this, especially Mike from NJ. God specifically excludes all mistreatment of slaves by recalling their equality. The Law of Moses may tolerate mistreating slaves, but God does not, and He says so clearly in the Book of Job: if you do it, you’ll be judged. Job 31:13-15.

I’m sorry, as the author of the post quoted, I think I may be being unfair in it. I interpret Job 31 as a condemnation of mistreating people, including servants, and I am expecting others to share that interpretation and the conclusions I draw from it. I do believe my interpretation has good reasons for it, but I don’t think the Church requires anyone to accept my interpretation, so perhaps I shouldn’t be so sassy about it. Mike, do you think I’ve misinterpreted these verses, or how do you read them?

Who is speaking in Job 31:13-15? Job. Who is speaking in Exodus 21? SirEwenii rightly noted earlier in the thread that it was God speaking. Job is trying to figure out what God had done what he had done. Job wondered if he had done something wrong (not knowing that God had been tempted by Satan to wager all Job had). Those passages don’t say that God says to treat slaves equally,

Mike from NJ and other atheist posters keep wanting to pretend that if something is tolerated in the Law of Moses, then it is cleared by God. That’s just not true according to the Old Testament. God called divorce a grave sin, even though the Law of Moses tolerated it. God called it a grave sin not to treat your servants as your equals, but the Law of Moses tolerated it.

I can tell you exactly where in the Bible that Jesus speaks out against divorce. Surely you can show me a parallel passage where Jesus speaks out against slavery.

The Law of Moses itself makes it clear that there is a higher law than itself, and that is the moral law of God. So why does Mike from NJ keep pretending that the Law of Moses has an ideal justice system in God’s eyes? The God of the Old Testament explicitly forbade many of the things the Mosaic Law permitted, including mistreatment of slaves. Do you admit this, Mike, or are you just pretending not to see it so you can keep your misguided attack on God for “okaying” things He actually forbade?

You keep trying to separate “The Law of Moses” from the what God said and wanted. What you call The Law of Moses came from God himself. I think I asked this earlier in the thread: Was God impotent in giving laws not tainted by the surrounding cultures? We know that God said not to follow the practices of those cultures. As I mentioned God was incredibly strict when it came to honoring the Sabbath (killing a man who picked up sticks) and circumcision (nearly killing Moses for not doing it quickly enough). Yet when it comes to atrocities like slavery he is accepting.

Allowing something, even in a restricted way, is allowing it. It would be like if a town council put limitations on how one could kidnap a woman and how often that kidnapee could be raped, and then claiming that town council was against kidnapping and rape.

 

[Tomdstone]

You keep trying to separate “The Law of Moses” from the what God said and wanted. What you call The Law of Moses came from God himself.

That is my opinion also.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Theologians such as Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins would disagree with your statement about “not holding water in the slightest” because they both teach it in their Bible studies.

Are Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins not capable of being wrong? As I noted this idea of God slowly weening the Hebrews off of sin fails when taking into account where they were when given these rules, the fact that they didn’t have slaves when told how to own and beat slaves, how God tells give his people certain directives without leeway on various other matters, and the idea that God is all good. Address those points and we can talk.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had slaves before they went into Egypt anyway.

Allegedly the Hebrews were in captivity for 430 years. I don’t do most of what my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents did in 1585.

 

[meltzerboy]

That is my opinion also.

The Mosaic Law (Torah) is the bedrock of Judaism. It is the inspired Word of G-d transmitted to and through Moses. But don’t forget that there are two Laws: the Written Law (Torah) and the Oral Law (Mishna), which would later be codified and commented upon by rabbinical scholars in the Gemara. The Mishna and Gemara fill in the gaps and ellipses within the Written Law and serve to interpret and reinterpret the Written Law. In sum, there is NO distinction between the Law of G-d and the Mosaic Law, both Written and Oral. The Mosaic Law IS the Law of G-d.

 

[lax16]

Are Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins not capable of being wrong? As I noted this idea of God slowly weening the Hebrews off of sin fails when taking into account where they were when given these rules, the fact that they didn’t have slaves when told how to own and beat slaves, how God tells give his people certain directives without leeway on various other matters, and the idea that God is all good. Address those points and we can talk.

Allegedly the Hebrews were in captivity for 430 years. I don’t do most of what my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents did in 1585.

Have you ever taken an OT bible study? It can help piece your questions together in a better understanding of the subject of slavery and God.

I think you have received some very good answers on this thread so far.

You know, I have a thought, but I don’t know if it will help. When Blessed Mother Theresa went to India to tend to the poor, she worked to make life better for those living in poverty.

Several hundred years from now, someone might say that Mother Theresa allowed poverty and sickness and an unfair caste system and did nothing to change the laws.

She didn’t go there to change laws, but to show love in spite of them.

To say the Catholic Church taught people how to treat their slaves with kindness, but didn’t work to outlaw slavery, is a misconception.

The Church works on changing hearts and hopes that man will use his free will to do good.

 

[meltzerboy]

Have you ever taken an OT bible study? It can help piece your questions together in a better understanding of the subject of slavery and God.

I think you have received some very good answers on this thread so far.

You know, I have a thought, but I don’t know if it will help. When Blessed Mother Theresa went to India to tend to the poor, she worked to make life better for those living in poverty.

Several hundred years from now, someone might say that Mother Theresa allowed poverty and sickness and an unfair caste system and did nothing to change the laws.

She didn’t go there to change laws, but to show love in spite of them.

To say the Catholic Church taught people how to treat their slaves with kindness, but didn’t work to outlaw slavery, is a misconception.

The Church works on changing hearts and hopes that man will use his free will to do good.

Excellent analogy. According to Jewish interpretation, this is the way G-d intended to abolish slavery, through changing hearts, minds, and behavior gradually, rather than demanding an end to slavery all at once, which would not have achieved the goal as well due to the negative cultural influence.

 

[lax16]

Excellent analogy. According to Jewish interpretation, this is the way G-d intended to abolish slavery, through changing hearts, minds, and behavior gradually, rather than demanding an end to slavery all at once, which would not have achieved the goal as well due to the negative cultural influence.

Does Judaism teach the free will of man?

If God forced man to obey than we are nothing more than puppets.

 

[meltzerboy]

Does Judaism teach the free will of man?

If God forced man to obey than we are nothing more than puppets.

Of course. Free will is the essence of mankind since only humans have it. According to Judaism, even the angels do not have free will, which differs from what Christianity believes. That is the topic of yet another thread!

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Have you ever taken an OT bible study? It can help piece your questions together in a better understanding of the subject of slavery and God.

I think you have received some very good answers on this thread so far.

No, I haven’t taken a bible study; but I do try to keep up with apologetics both from a Catholic and from a Protestant perspective. The articles I’ve seen, the videos I’ve watched, the posts I’ve read don’t deviate from what has been posted here, and since I think those explanations have multiple flaws I don’t see how a bible study would help. Can you direct me to an article, video, post, or bible study that gives reasonings for Biblical slavery that make more sense than the ones presented so far? If not, can you direct me to an article, video, post, or bible study that logically addresses the flaws that I’ve presented to the explanations given?

I’ve clipped out the part about Mother Teresa, since my response might drift into a tangent.

To say the Catholic Church taught people how to treat their slaves with kindness, but didn’t work to outlaw slavery, is a misconception.

The Church works on changing hearts and hopes that man will use his free will to do good.

Right now the topic is specifically about God and his allowing of slavery in the Bible. As you know, I am more than willing to go into great detail about how the Church did not work to outlaw slavery. Would you like me to do that?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Excellent analogy. According to Jewish interpretation, this is the way G-d intended to abolish slavery, through changing hearts, minds, and behavior gradually, rather than demanding an end to slavery all at once, which would not have achieved the goal as well due to the negative cultural influence.

Did God intend to abolish murder in a gradual manner?
Did God intend to abolish theft in a gradual manner?
Did God intend to establish honoring the Sabbath in a gradual manner?
Did God intend to establish dietary restrictions in a gradual manner?
Did God intend to abolish bearing false witness in a gradual manner?
Did God intend to establish honoring one’s mother and father in a gradual manner?

The idea that God could not put his foot down on slavery the way he did on so many other matters – many of which were far less important – is silly on its face. God didn’t wait to say that all of the above was part of his plan, yet this institution of cruelty was encouraged by God. Was God not intelligent enough to come up with a way to say that owning people is wrong that didn’t take millennia to accomplish? Did he lack the power to have his people fall in line on this one issue?

We don’t teach our children to do things the wrong way, then expect them later to do it correctly. We don’t teach a child that it’s okay to talk back to an adult then expect him or her to respect their elders as they get older. We don’t teach our children to play with matches then expect them to learn fire safety as teenagers. You don’t tell people below you that beating another person so severely that they die the next day is a right act without punishment, and then later expect to tell them (whenever he gets around to it, if ever) that the same monstrous deed is sinful. It’s in all ways utterly illogical.

 

[lax16]

No, I haven’t taken a bible study; but I do try to keep up with apologetics both from a Catholic and from a Protestant perspective. The articles I’ve seen, the videos I’ve watched, the posts I’ve read don’t deviate from what has been posted here, and since I think those explanations have multiple flaws I don’t see how a bible study would help. Can you direct me to an article, video, post, or bible study that gives reasonings for Biblical slavery that make more sense than the ones presented so far? If not, can you direct me to an article, video, post, or bible study that logically addresses the flaws that I’ve presented to the explanations given?

The OT Bible study I am doing lasts almost an entire year, skips parts, and moves very quickly. However, it manages to put into perspective the idea that even though God is unchanging, things have evolved. That is why I mentioned it as an option for you.

I think the posts here on this thread have been very insightful. If a person is convinced that God is unmerciful, or doesn’t exist at all, maybe no explanation will suffice.

I’ve clipped out the part about Mother Teresa, since my response might drift into a tangent.

Why?

Right now the topic is specifically about God and his allowing of slavery in the Bible. As you know, I am more than willing to go into great detail about how the Church did not work to outlaw slavery. Would you like me to do that?

My example of Blessed Mother Theresa applies here, based on some of what you have posted already. There are so many examples of the Church bringing peace and healing to an ailing world and they would overshadow any proof of bad popes, Catholics behaving badly or anything else.

Of all the issues people take with the Catholic Church, this is one that I have never heard raised before.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The OT Bible study I am doing lasts almost an entire year, skips parts, and moves very quickly. However, it manages to put into perspective the idea that even though God is unchanging, things have evolved. That is why I mentioned it as an option for you.

I think the posts here on this thread have been very insightful. If a person is convinced that God is unmerciful, or doesn’t exist at all, maybe no explanation will suffice.

Surely you can direct me to the part of such a study that specifically deals with the part where God seemingly endorses purchasing, owning, and beating slaves.

Why?

Because the last thread I was in yesterday evening I was chided for going off on a tangent, even though I was merely correcting someone who was repeatedly saying things that were very much not true.

My example of Blessed Mother Theresa applies here, based on some of what you have posted already. There are so many examples of the Church bringing peace and healing to an ailing world and they would overshadow any proof of bad popes, Catholics behaving badly or anything else.

In general, not just with religion, when someone preforms acts or advocates for the unspeakable it doesn’t get nullified by other good works. Take a look at once-beloved British television presenter Sir Jimmy Savile. It’s said he generated over 40 million pounds in donations to charity, but then his sexual abuse scandal came to light after his death. But we’re getting off-topic.

Of all the issues people take with the Catholic Church, this is one that I have never heard raised before.

Again we’re getting off topic. Do a search on Mother Teresa in Catholic Answers and you’ll see some issues that have been raised.

I want to focus on the intersection of Christianity and slavery, since that’s a topic where too often poor explanations are accepted and I feel it’s important that reasonable objections to those explanations don’t get ignored or moved aside.