Want some context? Go back and read Slavery in the Bible: A Christian View.

A Response to “God & Slavery”

In your opening remarks you’ve talked a lot about distinguishing the slavery in the bible from other forms of slavery. While it is true that the regulation of slavery in the bible is distinct from many other forms throughout history – I don’t think this has anything to do with any of my points seeing as I was dealing exclusively with the provisions for slavery specifically found in the bible.

That being said, the bible provides for the principle of regulated slavery as being moral even while it does not claim that the regulations in the OT are applicable universally. Nor does the bible directly address the institution of slavery with anything other than affirmation. We should not, therefore, be surprised that subsequent Christians took this principle of regulated slavery and proceeded to create regulated forms of slavery. The slaver’s defense that,

“From the earliest period of our time down to the present moment, slavery has existed in some form or under some name, in almost every country of the globe. It existed in every country known, even by name, to any one of the sacred writers, at the time of his writing; yet none of them condemns it in the slightest degree. Would this have been the case had it been wrong in itself? would not some one o the host of sacred writers have spoken of this alleged crime, in such terms as to show, in a manner not to be misunderstood, that God wished all men to be equal?” (source)

is unassailably true. This does not equate biblical slavery with early American slavery, but it does provide the principles upon which that terrible institution was based according to those who actually instituted it. Quite honestly, I’m struck by how closely some of the arguments used resemble those that used the bible to defend slavery. For example, here’s a bible course syllabus from 1885 titled, “The Scripture Doctrine of Slavery”.

. . .never was mankind given authority by the Author to have dominion in the same way we do over nature and over ourselves, over another human being. We do not have the right to invade the sovereign nation that is another ‘self’ for the purpose of defining them, taking from them, enslaving them. . . By virtue of being created in the image of a supernatural God, we have the foundation for any argument against forcible servitude of another human being and, in general, the Biblical basis for all human sacredness and dignity.

While you draw this conclusion from this verse, elsewhere the bible explicitly condones dominion over human beings. Specifically, it condones the invasion of other sovereign nations, taking them, and enslaving them.

Deut. 20:16. – “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall [a]offer it terms of peace. 11 If it[b]agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. 12 However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the [c]men in it with the edge of the sword.14 Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall [d]use the spoil of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations [e]nearby. 16 Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.”

So I can only take your point if I pick and choose my verses. . .which I am simply unwilling to do – nor should I have to if the bible is really the infallible word of god.

The provisions for the perpetual enslavement found in Leviticus 25: 44-46 is not at all tempered by considering it in context with what god said elsewhere, because none of what god said elsewhere negates what he says in Leviticus 25: 44-46. Either it is wrong to perpetually enslave people or it is not – obfuscating the issue by pointing out explicit statements such as this which specifically mention slavery are contradicted by derived implications you’ve drawn from other verses that do not specifically mention slavery is simply not very convincing.

2) The Bible unconditionally condemns kidnapping and trafficking in slaves. (both Before & After the Leviticus 25 passage)

Exodus 21:16 ~ “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

Deuteronomy 24:7 ~ “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

In the context of the first verse, the command is applied universally, to include all and any ‘man’ or ‘person.’ In the second verse, the same command is applied specifically to a fellow Hebrew.

There is nothing in the context of these verses that would indicate the command is applied universally. Exodus chapter 21 specifically predicates the laws about slaves with its opening, “When you buy a Hebrew slave. . .”. Furthermore, saying the bible “unconditionally” condemns the kidnapping and trafficking of slaves is, once again, completely contradicted by the text itself which elsewhere specifies very clearly how and when foreigners can be kidnapped and enslaved. Your assertions about what the bible means are quite simply contradicted by what the bible actually says.

The reference in 1 Timothy could be seen as an indictment of slavery. . .if not for the specific provisions in the law that condone it as well as Paul’s instruction for slaves to obey their masters. More likely this is in reference to those who enslave others in “unlawful” ways since it’s referencing kidnappers. Additionally, you are going much further than the text when you say that forcing someone to be a slave was unlawful. Of course slave owners could force their slaves to be slaves, they were given that authority explicitly within the text of the bible itself. This authority was regulated, sure, but let’s not pretend that it’s not there when it so clearly is.

“You people living in comfortable, affluent First World countries have welfare and charities to support you if you are economically bankrupt. In ancient Middle Eastern society, selling your children to indentured servitude was pretty common. It exists even now, in many poorer countries around the world. I wonder what would’ve been the “better” law for God to have decreed. What do you think would’ve been a better solution? All your idealistic notions of freedom and equality of mankind were only fully realized in this relatively peaceful, affluent environment of post-WW II. Do you think it would have made sense if God were to decree for Moses to create a welfare service to support all those poor families? Do you think it would be economically sustainable at all?”

I fail to see how this person’s utter lack of moral imagination is relevant. There are plenty of alternatives to slavery, none of which would be impossible for an omnipotent god. Boo-freaking-hoo.

My point in quoting him is to help point out a fundamental misunderstanding about ancient Hebrew ‘slavery’ (and in fact, most ancient near eastern forms of slavery), as it existed for both the Jewish and the Gentile slave alike– we automatically assume it was forced labor primarily to benefit the rich.

I couldn’t care less. My qualms with slavery are moral – not economic. Even if there were some benefits to the poor this would not make it moral any more than regulating prostitution so that there were benefits to prostitutes would make that institution moral.

In reality, historically, the Israelite form of slavery was a mutually agreed upon legal transaction and primarily benefitted the poor.

Yes, if you were an adult, male, Hebrew selling yourself into debt slavery. I have pointed out before the different provisions for different types of slavery in the bible – you simply cannot pretend that all slaves were adult, male, Hebrew debt slaves or that this was the only form of slavery explicitly condoned by the text. We both know that is not the case. If you were a young woman during this time and happened to be in the wrong city you could be kidnapped and raped. If you were a child or a woman you could be sold to cover a father’s debt. If you were a foreigner you could be enslaved in another country for a multitude of reasons and sold into perpetual slavery not only for yourself but for your children, if you were born to a slave you were to be a slave your entire life. None of these forms of slavery had anything at all to do with debt. Nor were they designed to benefit the poor.

The History of Ancient Near Eastern Law you cited clearly acknowledges these differences:

“In determining who should benefit from their intervention, the legal systems drew two important distinctions: between debt and chattel slaves, and between native and foreign slaves. The authorities intervened first and foremost to protect the former category of each–citizens who had fallen on hard times and had been forced into slavery by debt or famine.”

This omission leads to blatantly erroneous statements such as this,

. . .these transactions were meant to be entirely voluntary, initiated on the part of the slave and his/her family rather than forced in any way (as is clearly stated in Ex. 21:16).

While the initial transaction between an adult, male, Hebrew and another for debt slavery might indeed be voluntary there is no provisions for the choice of woman and children sold into debt slavery to cover a father’s debt, daughter’s sold into effective sexual slavery, non-Hebrew slaves sold by foreigners, or slaves taken during war. Furthermore, the bible contains provisions by which a slave-owner can effectively blackmail male Hebrew slaves into perpetual slavery by “giving” them wives, and then holding their wives and children hostage unless they pledge themselves into perpetual service because their wives and children are “their property”. This can only be called “voluntary” in the most perverse sense.

There’s nothing in the Old Testament to bear out the assumption that these ‘purchases’ were to be carried out, either through some third-party slave merchant or against a slave’s will.

Again, these “purchases” are not the only manner by which the bible allows for slaves to be taken. That being said, if you are actually claiming that these purchases were intended to be voluntary then surely there is an actual provision for the slave’s choice in the matter. Curiously, when I read that verse, I see none whatsoever. The laws are explicitly being written for the slave owner, not the slave.

Notice the word “may.” This word is important because it shows that ‘property status’ for foreign slaves was not the default status, but rather an option allowed by God to provide for the long-term physical and economic well-being of the slave and their families, so long as it did not violate any of His prior commands (e.g. Ex. 21:16).

There is no indication that this has anything to do with the physical and economic well-being of the slave in the text. Are you actually arguing that slaves wanted their children enslaved? That they wanted their masters to be able to marry, or give away, their daughters to other men for money? That this was to their benefit? And even if they did, would that make such actions moral? Even the fact that this was an “option” would be immoral.

There are no indications to the contrary.

Obviously there are, since slave owners had to resort to blackmailing their slaves with their own wives and children in order to retain them in addition to being allowed to beat them.

Exodus 21:20-21 – “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

I fully acknowledge that abuse probably happened. . .

Stop. Re-read what you wrote. Hopefully you are seeing the glaring moral blind spot in what you just said. What do you mean “abuse probably happened”? If you beat someone with a rod because they are “your property” that is abuse. Any normal person would recognize that as abuse if it occurred today, yourself included. The point isn’t that biblical slavery is the most barbaric form of slavery in history (it wasn’t), it’s that it’s still slavery.

The aberration of harboring escaped slaves is notable in the ANE, and commendable. Yet it does not negate the fact that regulated slavery is still slavery. They could have been the most well-treated slaves in history and it still would have been wrong because slavery is immoral.

It is this same Paul who condemns ‘enslavers’ in 1 Timothy 1:9-11, reiterating, as we’ve already mentioned, what God says in the Old Testament about those who ‘take someone captive in order to sell him/her into slavery’—that they are breaking God’s laws by forcibly enslaving other human beings. This is black-and-white inexcusable.

Clearly this is not a universal prohibition, as god provided specific instances in which people could be taken captive in order to sell into slavery. Additionally, the bible allows for the purchase of foreign slaves with no regard for how they became enslaved in addition to their perpetual enslavement as well as that of their children. I can only, then, take your points as valid by picking your vague verses that do not explicitly deal with slavery and ignoring other verses that explicitly do deal with slavery.

And it is this same Paul who writes an entire New Testament epistle (okay, so it’s only one chapter) to a slave owner, Philemon, in regards to how best to react towards his escaped slave, Onesimus, whom Paul is sending back home. Why does Paul go against the Old Testament law of non-extradition?

It could be because it isn’t clear whether that applies to non-Hebrews (I don’t know if Onesimus was Hebrew off the top of my head). Nevertheless here we have an example of Paul addressing a slave owner directly. . .and he doesn’t simply admonish him to free his slave because owning another human being is wrong, instead he writes in incredibly vague language kind of sort of saying, “Hey, be nice to this guy because he’s one of us now.”

Conclusions

The bible condones slavery, it does not promote equality. While there are provisions for slaves in the bible it must be noted that there are also different forms of slavery and different rules for different types of slaves. Most provisions were for only adult, male, Hebrew slaves and did not cover women, children, or foreigners. More to the point, these provisions do not render biblical slavery as anything other than disgusting. There are no scriptures that specifically condemn slavery, either in the New Testament or the Old. Every time it is mentioned specifically in the bible it is to affirm the institution, not to decry it.

I am not prepared to cut a supposedly omnipotent god any slack for having to “deal with the times”. That is bullshit. He had plenty of time to talk about killing non-virgins on their wedding nights or murdering homosexuals for being gay; he could have spared a few moments to talk about human equality and sorted out a system in which people can pay their debts without selling their children. All you have to do to see the absurdity in such arguments is to replace slavery with something like prostitution. Imagine that, given the widespread acceptance during the times, god had allowed for regulated prostitution. Even if prostitutes were well-protected by law, could choose their customers, were not permitted to be mistreated, etc. – would this make prostitution moral in your mind?

To say that a system which allows the kidnap and rape of foreign women, the enslavement of foreign men, women, and children through war, the purchase and selling of foreign slaves, the perpetual enslavement of human beings, the enslavement of children as ‘property’ of their parent’s masters, and the unrestricted beating of slaves provided no permanent harm is done “might be abused” is to miss the point completely. All of these things are, themselves, abuses – and abuses we would instantly recognize as wrong if we saw them today.

In trying to defend this book as being more than just a book, isn’t it possible you are turning a blind eye to things you actually find morally repugnant? Would you really want to live in a society governed by OT laws written by this god in which your children could be enslaved by your master? Where your master could beat you, or your wife, or your children within an inch of their lives provided they could stand in a few days? Where your own children, if born while you were in slavery, were the property of your master? In which non-virgins and homosexuals were stoned? Or would you rather live in our society, governed by laws written by men?

Isn’t it odd that our laws, however flawed, are so much more morally acceptable than those that came directly from the mind of god?