« Land of the Rising Son | Main | Another Perspective on Inerrancy »

March 27, 2006

More about the Bible and slavery

The topic of the Bible and slavery has sparked a lot of interesting discussion lately. Ed Brayton's original post and my response have each drawn more than 50 comments. In Ed's response to me, he quotes passages from Leviticus and Exodus which explicitly permit slavery and seem to indicate that such slavery was--at least in certain cases--worse than the form of indentured servitude that I and others have pointed to as typical of slavery in the Scriptures.

I acknowledge that I did not have these Old Testament passages in mind when I wrote that "the slavery which existed in the times and cultures in which the Scriptures were written was not the same as the enslavement of Africans in North America..." In light of those passages, it would be better to say that the slavery not condemned in the New Testament was more like indentured servitude than modern slavery.

The passages Ed quotes--Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:20-21--deal with the treatment of non-Hebrew slaves. (Ed claims the latter applies to Hebrew slaves, but that seems unlikely to me.[1]) Ed points out (correctly, as far as I can tell[2]) that the Israelites were instructed to take slaves as spoils of war. And it's worse than that, actually. God instructed Israel to take part in wars of aggression and even to completely wipe out other groups of people. (See I Samuel 15) So, does the Bible endorse genocide?

The key to understanding this lies in the nature of the relationship between men and God before and after Christ (through His death) brought in the element of grace. Israel was God's chosen nation. They were governed by God through the ministry of the prophets, and just as God often punished them by allowing them to suffer losses in war and becoming enslaved by other nations, God also used Israel as an earthly instrument to wage war against enemy nations and take them captive. (Though again I will point out that there were laws for how the Israelites were to treat their slaves.) All of this took place to set the stage for Christ's incarnation, earthly ministry, and redemptive death.

I do not fully understand how the enslavement of Israel's enemies was a part of God's plan, but I do know this: when Christ came, the exclusive covenant between God and Israel ended, and a new covenant began between God and all those who accept Christ. So Ed is inaccurate when he states that taking slaves as spoils of war "is treated as absolutely normal in the Bible." It is an accepted practice in the Old Testament, but I believe it is clearly counter to the teachings of Christ and his apostles in the New Testament. Just as we no longer make animal sacrifices to atone for our sin, we are not authorized to take slaves and commit genocide. It's also faulty reasoning, I believe, to imply that because Jesus or Paul didn't explicitly tell their followers not to own slaves, they were somehow endorsing it. There are many things that are not explicitly prohibited which we can reasonably conclude are immoral or sinful based on the principles set forward in Scripture.

Also weighing in on the issue: Henry Neufeld discusses the topic and concludes that the Bible contains not so much the definitive word of God, but more a record of God's interaction with people. I think it would be fair to conclude that Mr. Neufeld does not consider the Bible to be inerrant.

Mark Olson comments, and is critical of Ed. Ed has responded to Mark.


1) The first eleven verses of Exodus 21 clearly deal with the treatment of Hebrew slaves, but then the text begins to discuss the legal handling of injuries in general. When we get to v. 20-21, we see that they apply to "slaves" in the NIV translation whereas 1-11 apply to "servants." While I don't know if the Hebrew words here were different, the intervening non-slave-related passages certainly cast doubt on whether these passages applied to Hebrew slaves. Also note that in v. 26-27, if a master causes a "servant" to lose an eye or a tooth, the servant must be set free. Does it make sense that beating a servant to within an inch of his/her life would not be punishable, but causing him/her to lose a tooth must be repaid by freeing him/her?

2) I searched in an online concordance, and I found several references to taking "captives." I found none for taking "slaves," though my assumption is the captives became slaves.

Posted by Eric Seymour at March 27, 2006 06:57 PM

Comments

The New Testament book of Philemon references Onesimus - "no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." Philemon 16.

As far as versions go, I offer these quotes from the BibleGateway.com:

"Recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament has been reviewed, and some passages have been updated for even greater fidelity to the original manuscripts."

"The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The NASB update carries on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say--not merely what the translator believes they mean."

The difference between the NIV and the NASB is that the NIV was intended as a "thought-for-thought" translation:

"The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words."

From a scholarly standpoint, the NASB is the more accurate translation, but reviewing the NIV and others will help anyone who wants to know what the Bible says. I took Greek in college, although I never took Hebrew, and I found that the NASB was the better translation.

Regardless of which translation you use (and it really should be a translation rather than a paraphrase), the important thing is to read the Bible itself, instead of what someone else says about it.

There also are some great tools available to for Bible study, including concordances (which are cross-references for words in the Bible - Young's is good, Strong's is good), commentaries (some are better than others), and Greek and Hebrew lexicons.

The way to actually study the Bible is to read the passage, and answer (for yourself) a few questions: what did the writer say? What does the passage mean? What does it mean to me? Chuck Swindoll has a great outline for the Bible itself and how to study it on his website at: http://www.insight.org/ToolsForGrowth/Article.asp?ArticleID=1000086.

Posted by: lawyerchik1 at March 28, 2006 09:51 AM | permalink

1) The first eleven verses of Exodus 21 clearly deal with the treatment of Hebrew slaves, but then the text begins to discuss the legal handling of injuries in general. When we get to v. 20-21, we see that they apply to "slaves" in the NIV translation whereas 1-11 apply to "servants." While I don't know if the Hebrew words here were different, the intervening non-slave-related passages certainly cast doubt on whether these passages applied to Hebrew slaves. Also note that in v. 26-27, if a master causes a "servant" to lose an eye or a tooth, the servant must be set free. Does it make sense that beating a servant to within an inch of his/her life would not be punishable, but causing him/her to lose a tooth must be repaid by freeing him/her?

Verses 1-11 and 26-27 of Exodus 21 refer to the treatment of Hebrew slaves/servants. The same Hebrew word, "eved", is used for slave and servant. The Jewish Publication Society translation uses "slave" in both places.

The reason for the law allowing the servant to go free if his master beat him and knocked out his tooth or eye was to teach that ANY physical abuse, no matter how slight, of a servant was not to be tolerated. If the loss of single tooth was sufficient to free a servant, how much more so for a severe beating?

Be well,
Joseph

Posted by: Joseph at March 28, 2006 04:27 PM | permalink

If you look at all the verses dealing with slavery in the Old Testament(Moses, the Law), we find they all restrict bad treatment by the "slave owner". Things like slavery result from sin. The whole of creation is fallen and decaying because of sin. So basically you want to complain to God that He hasn't done enough in restricting man's sin.
Be carefull about calling God into court. Here's what the last guy we know of who did it successfully had to say about the experience.
Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. 6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. Then again I guess that wouldn't be so bad after all.


Posted by: Mike O at March 28, 2006 08:20 PM | permalink

"So, does the Bible endorse genocide?"

In a word, yes. That's why I consider the Bible to be morally errant.

Posted by: Jon Rowe at March 30, 2006 10:30 PM | permalink

How can we compare God to man? God at one time killed every living being on earth except Noah and his family. Did God have a right to do that? Yes, He did. At one time Adolf Hitler ordered millions of people to be killed. Did he have a right to do that? No, he did not. No one has a right to destroy human life which God creates.

God created everything. He creates, and in His perfect judgment and righteousness He can destroy as well. Any person that holds the Creator and Sustainer of the universe to any act of unrighteousness simply does not know God the Father.

Many people think that God should be some big puppy dog who will always love and never judge. On the contrary, God will judge us and hold us accountable, and He will do so in perfect wisdom. The thought of being held accountable by a power greater than ourselves is the reason people scoff at God. We cannot begin to fully understand God from a human perspective. How do finite creatures, such as us, speak for the actions of an infinite Creator?

That being said, how awesome is it that the infinite Creator of the universe wants to have a personal relationship with us! That He would come down and pay the penalty for our sin, which is death. I do not know about anyone else, but I trust God the Father with my life. He can make better use of it in a week than I can in a lifetime.

Posted by: Eric Thacker at April 2, 2006 08:31 PM | permalink

"...how awesome is it that the infinite Creator of the universe wants to have a personal relationship with us! That He would come down and pay the penalty for our sin, which is death. I do not know about anyone else, but I trust God the Father with my life. He can make better use of it in a week than I can in a lifetime."

Amen!!

Posted by: lawyerchik1 at April 3, 2006 10:49 PM | permalink

Slavery is mentioned (see: condoned) in the new testament too, you know.

Posted by: bob at April 20, 2006 07:39 PM | permalink

Post a comment




Remember Me?





(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----



Rankings and Aggregators
Technocrati
Blogdom of God
Who Links Here

Site Meter