Greetings all,

This is a continuation of a conversation that began in the back-end of the culture thread, ‘The God Delusion (Dawkins) ABC 9.30 pm Sunday’

You can pick up the beginning of the conversation here

But, I wonder what the practise looked like at the hard end of reality.

Although that’s not what we were discussing, it is worth considering. Basically the Israelites never followed the law. They never had the sabbatical year. That was one of the big reasons for the exile.

Maybe not
but the law still allowed for abuse of the women
and non-continuance of the marriages of slaves
bit of a puzzler innit?

How did it allow for the abuse of women?

Now for the marriage issue, the page I linked to has a bit to say: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Now, let’s turn to the odd looking ‘post-release’ passage, dig into the situation/background, and look at the different scenarios…
...
Case 3. Single in, Married during, Single out (with or without kids). This is the one that seems odd at first glance to us. Let’s make some notes:
The wife is obviously a servant too, since a free woman wouldn’t have to stay behind and the offspring of free and slave was free in the ANE
This means that the owner paid for the servant girl himself (at typical prices of at least one-third to one-half of all the labor output the male slave would have generated in his 6-year tenure), or, if she was born in the household, then the owner had been paying all her support costs for years and years, with little economic value--given marriage age was around 12-14 (the support costs being considerably more than the male slaves output). ("If, however, his wife has married him during his servitude, obviously by the permission and through the provision of his owner, both the wife and any children born to such a union must remain with the owner when the “temporary” slave claims his freedom of the seventh year.” [WBC])
Now, normally, this male servant would have to pay the mohar (bride-price, bride-present) for the wife, but he obviously doesn’t have such resources in his circumstances. This means one of two things: (1) the bride-price must be paid after his release; or (2) the marriage is not a ‘real’ one, but a siring (like concubines sometimes functioned) to help populate the household.
We know the latter (#2, ‘siring only’) situations occurred, and typically did NOT generate the emotional/commitment attachments of a real marriage [probably difficult to generate in a relationship whose average duration would have been 36 months (half of 6 years), most months of which would have been spent in pregnancy/nursing ("children")]:
“In the ancient Near East is was a common practice for a master to mate a slave with a foreign bondwoman solely for the purpose of siring ‘house born’ slaves. In such instances, no matrimonial or emotional bond was necessarily involved, and the woman and her offspring remained the property of the master” [JPStorah, in loc.]
So, this should not be a serious issue for us.
But, in case emotional bonds WERE created with the wife/kids, there were at least two options open to the ex-servant:
First, he could invoke the clause of ‘permanent servitude’ and stay forever in that situation (with security, familiarity, family);
Secondly, he could negotiate a marriage/mohar payment and “get” his wife/kids. (Slaves did have to pay betrothal fees: “… they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. “ [HI:HANEL:1, 632]
This second possibility could take several forms:
We know that a person could continue to work/provide services inside a household (as a post-servant) and earn the bride-price, like Jacob did for Rachel and Leah (7 years for each).
We know that, in the ANE, future services could be accepted by an owner as payment today ("More frequently (than a slave using their property to buy freedom), the manumitted slave was bound to support the former owner during the latter’s lifetime. In Speleers 45, a slave is ceremonially manumitted and bound by a support clause but is also said to have ‘redeemed himself,’ which suggests that his future services were seen as a payment in fact, if not in law.” [HI:HANEL:1,384]), so the owner could allow the family to exit, on the basis of a services ‘promissory note’.
The post-servant could move out (assuming he had a place to go, obviously), arrange these terms, and take his wife/kids to himself.
Some of the ‘lavish gifts’ the master was supposed to send him out with at his release (see Deut 15.15) could be used as a/part of a bride-price to get the process going.

So firstly we have to recognise that it’s very likely that they weren’t married in any sense we are familiar with.
Secondly there were many ways that the husband could redeem his wife, and the gifts that the master had given him would certainly help with this a lot.

Michael said:

The word of God is neither in flux nor subject to change as of the ushering in of the new Covenant, while the core concept of what is ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ never changes the way in which someone can be disobedient to God has changed at three notable events:

So....

Slavery is not a ‘core sin‘ ?
Or is it only a sin for non-Jews (Is it still legitimate for Jews?) ?
Or, given your reference to Philemon, does this mean that slavery is still acceptable? (As it refers to a slave-owning Christian)

Dannii stated:

This made all slavery voluntary.

A very bold assertion.

And your evidence for this declaration -

Also, in the link above, it is suggested that slaves were allowed to run away, and if they did so, they did not have to be returned.

So from a suggestion in a commentary you draw that conclusion?
You certainly have a very long bow. I had a brief look at your link (it is very long) and could not locate the ‘suggestion’ to which you alluded. The article seemed to be bending over backwards to demonstrate that ‘Old Testament’ slavery wasn’t slavery at all - more like a holiday camp.

I am unconvinced

To take up Owen’s point, let’s look again at Exodus 21:

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

Now, can either of you give me an explanation of how this can ever be acceptable - in any culture / at any time / in any context ?

And please could you answer in your own words - not quoting commentaries or platitudes.

Because I am interested in what you think

Rob

P.S
Michael,
with regard to ethics,
I subscribe to the position that moral systems are the result of Natural Selection: I will not discuss that on this thread - but if there is sufficient interest I might start a thread on ‘Evolutionary Ethics’ - if the moderators thought it suitable.
However at some time in the future, be assured that I will indeed be indistinguishable from a puddle of mud.  :-)

P.P.S. Just a note of appreciation to the moderators for the smooth transition: Thanks Mark! (Both of you)

I think we have to remember a few thinks as we look at slavery:
1) There are two types of ‘slavery’ in the OT, we seem to have muddled them together.
2) Though the NT does not condemn the practice of slavery outright (Its rarely mentioned) but it is on a Christian NT basis that we now reject slavery.
In a sought of catch 22, while slavery is not condemned in the NT the practice there of is both counter gospel and counter fruits of the spirit.
3) To properly understand the OT we must put away our modern conceptions of morality, we must think like someone from the Old Covenant and we must understand our morality on the basis of Disobedience to God, to deal with the text in any other fashion is to have already assumed that God doesn’t exist, and then to judge it with own version of morality.

Before dealing with slavery you should read Exodus 21, Leviticus 25, Deuteronomy 15 and 21.

First type of slavery:
This is perhaps the most mentioned form of slavery so far, that is the willful subjection of a Israelite man or woman to six years of servitude to another Israelite man or women.
In all honesty this isn’t really a form of slavery, at least not in the sense we know it for a few reasons:
1) “He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you;” (Lev 25:40)
2) “He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly.” (Lev 25:53)
3) “at half the cost of a hired servant he has served you six years.” (Deut 15:18)
4) “Even if he is not redeemed in any of these ways, he and his children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee” (Lev 25:54)
5) “And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him.” (Deut 15:13-14)
The only case were a person who willfully placed themselves in this form of ‘slavery’ was not released with his children and wife is when the wife was given to him by his master during slavery, this is most likely because he has not paid the bridal price for her, which is something all Israelite men had to do, therefor it is not unjust that he is not released with his wife.
If he still wanted to have her for a wife then he could no doubt either wait until she also was released from her six years, or redeem her if he could afford it.
Even in our modern society I see nothing wrong with this type of slavery, it is in fact rather a clever way of relieving a fellow citizen from poverty. This is because it is a willful subjection, it only lasts till the seventh year, and the half price wages make it an attractive way to help the poor. Its a rather smart poverty relief program.

Second type of slavery:
This is slavery as we usually think of it, this is when a foreigner is purchased for life, though the position is not without its rights, although they are meager.
1) “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.” (Ex 21:26)
2) “If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.” (Ex 21:27)
So in regards to this verse,
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.” (Ex 21:20-21) it places it in a far less harsh light, as beating your slave as a punishment could evidently result in their unexpected release.

So this is the tough one, why was slavery allowed?

I’m going to put forward an idea, its not fully formed but here goes. I would say it is a gracious form of judgment. Most of the nations surrounding Israel were meant to have been totally destroyed for they practiced child sacrifice, male and female temple prostitution, etc. The reason for the totality of their destruction is two fold:
A: They deserved it (Incidentally we all do, but the nature of their sin was of a far more pressing matter.)
B: So that they could not teach Israel to be part of the some horrid practices of Child sacrifice and the like! (The failure to destroy them meant that Israel did end up doing these practices.)
So when they weren’t totally destroyed what happened? Well despite the fact they deserved death (As do we all, but thankfully Jesus took ours.) They were taken as slaves, and I don’t know about you but being a slave (That would be protected under Israels law) is allot better then being dead!

Israel and Judah also faced this judgment, when they were taken into captivity in Babylon for imitating the very same detestable practices of the nations before them.

So then, why do we now think of slavery as wrong?
Well the first type of slavery (the six year paid slavery) I don’t think is actually wrong, if we stopped calling it slavery and started calling it poverty alleviation it would actually look quite attractive. When I was in Uganda I stayed with a family who had two servants who came from poverty stricken families, but they were treated as family and were also being given an education, so that they may have a chance in the future, very loving!
As for the second type, firstly as a form of judgment it is no longer required because Jesus took our punishment on the cross, secondly now that the Gentiles are grafted in, everyone can be part of the people of God and should be treated as the people of God, thus the second type of slavery is ruled out because their are no longer any foreigners, only those who have not accepted the grace of God, and it is to those people that we proclaim the gospel of God’s grace!

So from a suggestion in a commentary you draw that conclusion?
You certainly have a very long bow. I had a brief look at your link (it is very long) and could not locate the ‘suggestion’ to which you alluded. The article seemed to be bending over backwards to demonstrate that ‘Old Testament’ slavery wasn’t slavery at all - more like a holiday camp.

On the other hand, you and others are keen to portray the ancient Israelites in the same way as we view the New World/Middle Age European slave trade based on little more than the word ‘slave’ being used by both.

Now, can either of you give me an explanation of how this can ever be acceptable - in any culture / at any time / in any context ?

And please could you answer in your own words - not quoting commentaries or platitudes.

Because I am interested in what you think

Honestly, I think that if we ignore the ANE culture and consider our own, it does seem very wrong. But that’s hardly fair. There are simply too many issues there to be certain about much at all, and we’re not helped by inperfect translations. Consider the possible cultural differences for these words:
gives - We normally think of gifts as being unconditional and unretractable, but did they? Was it more of a loan? Was it under a contract?
wife - Was she a wife, or was she a concubine? Were they in love, or have any emotional bond at all?
belong/free - What is meant by these two words? Could they refer to a social or legal standing or status? Even though the man was free, might he not have still decided to work for his old master as a freeman? Could the husband and wife live together even though she wasn’t free?

Does this verse actually dictate any separation at all? If it refered to their social status only, and they were still free to live together, I see nothing wrong.

Michael & Danni,
Thanks to both of you for your considered reponses; Michael in especial has obviously put some time and thought into his post, so I will similarly consider his argument carefully before commenting upon it.

But I will offer a few words on Dannii’s post:

Honestly, I think that if we ignore the ANE culture and consider our own, it does seem very wrong. But that’s hardly fair. There are simply too many issues there to be certain about much at all, and we’re not helped by imperfect translations.

A legitimate point: We need to consider the words of the Bible, particularly the OT within the ‘cultural context’ of the time?
Not to simply interpret the words literally as we understand them in a modern arena?

So. similarly, we should also consider the ‘six-day creation’ and the Sun being ‘stopped’ within this cultural context, and not simply accept a literal reading of the words as they are presented?

Rob

I don’t think I’ve ever argued for a literal reading of anything ;)

Rob Callander - 23 June 2007 12:43 AM

So. similarly, we should also consider the ‘six-day creation’ and the Sun being ‘stopped’ within this cultural context, and not simply accept a literal reading of the words as they are presented?

I’ll leave the ‘six day creation’ debate aside, simply because I don’t want to get off track, but in regards to the sun being stopped, I find it odd that some people are willing to accept God (even more so the Christian understanding of him) and then waver when it comes to the miracles he performs.
There willing to believe he can be beyond logic and time by creating the universe, but then unwilling to accept that this same God could then perform the impossible again by briefly pausing the rotation of the planets around the sun.
Their logic is very inconsistent.
So you have to approach the text from the view point that the writer really did believe God could do the impossible, and you’d be stretching the book of Joshua pretty thin if you were trying to argue that random sections of the book were allegorical and other parts literal when the writer gives no impression that any part of his work was to be taken allegorically.

Michael,

Firstly, let me apologise for introducing the off-topic elements into the discussion - if I answer your and Dannii’s comments on those subjects, it will be in the ‘Noah’s Ark’ thread.

In Philosophy and Science (which, after all is a development from Natural Philosphy) any proposal is examined, dismembered, pulled inside out, and constantly reviewed agains’t the prevailing evidence: if it is found wanting then it is abandoned (or at the very least somewhat side-lined as the search for a better theory intensifies).

In some religious views there is a singular text, with a singular, unchanging interpretation - and any evidence to the contrary is twisted, bent, and manipulated until it bears no relatationship to what it actually is in order to justify that unchanging interpretation.

So, I have a proposal.

For both you and Dannii, and Derek (if he wishes to) and anyone else if they are interested.

You are of course free to reject it as unhelpful, pointless or just plain ridiculous (or simply impossible) and I will think none the less of you:

I want you to argue from my position:

‘That slavery in any form is, and always has been wrong’ -
and point out the fallacies/ limitations in your own arguments.

I think it would be valuable both for you; in constructing an argument for a position with which you do not agree, as well as providing me with some insight as to how you view my cognitive exposition.

As I said, I will understand if you see no value in such an exercise - but personally I would find it fascinating, and believe that you would gain much from such an undertaking.

I will provide my reponse to your previous comments regardless- but will hold off until you have at least had the opportunity to consider my suggestion.

Rob

I think I would actually come to a similar point as before, that a lack of understanding of culture and language prevent us from fully understanding what the Bible says about slavery. I’d probably say that the arguments saying OT slavery is OK are stretching the text too far.

I think a good general principle would be that when there are two or more possible interpretations of a part of the Bible, the one that reflects the character of God more than the others is probably the best interpretation. It’s usually quite rare however to have many reasonable interpreations, usually something will make the interpretation easily rejectable.

Rob, what do you think about ADF scholarships?

Rob Callander - 22 June 2007 08:30 PM

To take up Owen’s point, let’s look again at Exodus 21:

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

Now, can either of you give me an explanation of how this can ever be acceptable - in any culture / at any time / in any context ?

For exactly the same reason that today’s family law courts habitually grant custody to the parent in a position to provide for the needs of the child, not to the one who has no job, no regular income, no kinship ties, and who is not in a position to provide for the child.

For exactly the same reason that today’s family law courts habitually grant custody to the parent in a position to provide for the needs of the child, not to the one who has no job, no regular income, no kinship ties, and who is not in a position to provide for the child.

Cough, cough, ahemmm, bahwaa haaa awhaaaa bahwaaaaaaaa haaa hee haaa

If only it was true, if only it was true.

Do you have evidence that it is not true?

G’day Jonathon,

Sorry for taking this thread of topic, yes unfortunately there is much evidence of the family law courts having a bias towards awarding custody to a parent who does not fulfill those requirements as much as the other parent does.

I also agree that in theory your answer answers this thread question well, and indeed the family law courts in theory should be doing the same - however they don’t - or at least up to now have not done a good job of it.