I am almost certain I cannot provide a satisfying answer to Jose, for I am not sure I am satisfied myself, and have my own questions. I will share how I reconcile seeming conflicts within the biblical record on slavery, and perhaps other commenters can jump in and offer their insight.
-
There are a couple of perspectives I use in interpreting the Bible’s references to slavery. The first is to see the Biblical record a whole, and look at the trajectory set from the beginning, throughout the Bible, and into the present.
Jose, you already specified the terms for slavery we are considering, the Hebrew words ebed and amah. Since you have already spoken to Rabbis about the use of those terms in the Bible, I don’t want to recover the ground, but for the sake of common reference, I offer the paper Slavery 1808 B.C. by Rabbi Alan Mayor Sokobin which can be downloaded here. I think Sokobin does a good job of briefly but clearly showing that in the Hebrew system “allowed” (I will get back to this) in the Old Testament Bible, it is not fair or accurate to say that slaves had “no rights whatsoever.”
That said, knowing that slaves had some rights, protections, and expectations for treatment and release does not fully solve the problem. What it does do is show that God’s chosen people were set on a new trajectory, a radical departure all other forms of slavery.
In the New Testament, the arc of this trajectory becomes even more radical, culminating in the famous scripture of Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
What can be frustrating, even to Christians, is that in reading through the New Testament, Paul, while presenting the radical truth above, seems in so many other of his writings to take a more passive or socially conservative stance towards the practice of slavery, and as he does on many other matters (including gender roles), he subtly instructs his readers to change the system from within rather than outright resistance or overthrow. It is clear that the early days of Christianity were fraught with peril and persecution for Christian believers, including Paul. Paul’s contributions to the New Testament were mostly letters to new groups of believers, and it is possible that Paul carefully crafted his letters with one concern being the protection of himself and his believers should the letters fall into the hands of government authority. For whatever reason, Paul chose mostly to write around social/political matters that would be considered highly subversive.
Whether Paul was being strategic or imperfect is not really important. What is important is that Christianity grew stronger and bolder, and on most social matters, including slavery, Christians and Christian culture has historically continued (albeit with struggles and setbacks) along the trajectory from savagery, despotism and discrimination towards freedom and justice, inspired to make a reality out of the charge in Galatians 5:1 to “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
A second perspective is more philosophical, and harder to put into words, but I’ll begin with a couple of rabbit trails and hope it gets back to slavery. The first sidebar is viewing the Biblical record as a Metanarrative for God’s Unfolding Purpose, which happens to be the title of a great little book by Suzanne de Dietrich. To sidetrack even further, I just pulled my copy of the book off the shelf to provide a passage from her preface:
The recurring motif is God’s will to save mankind and the world. This will has been at work since the world began, and it will continue to be operative throughout history until it has reached its final goal and God is all in all.
Christians and non-Christians alike often get so entangled in the micro-level analysis of the chapter/verse/word details that we forget the macro-level message. It is like listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony note for note and maybe capturing a melody or two, but missing its transcendent beauty. Or like reading Robert Frosts’ The Road Not Taken and either limiting it to a literal story, or using it to create a rule that only the less traveled road should be taken in every circumstance. As the saying goes, we often don’t see the forest for the trees.
This leads to the second sidebar, which is that I personally like to consider the history of humanity in many ways as analogous to the life of a person with God as Father:
- In our earliest days, humanity created havoc (sin) without understanding the consequences.
- In humanity’s youth, God ruled through commandments, and often used force in order to make clear the consequences of not following them with correct action.
- Just as humanity was coming to understand examine itself intellectually and mature into an adolescent adult, God sent Christ to Earth, giving Humanity a new image of authority and new standards that made it clear that actions were no longer enough, and that virtue extends to the heart and mind. Humanity both rebelled against and hungered after this new level of responsibility, and it would require time for humanity to understand the true significance of Christ.
- Since Christ, humanity has had to learn to be an adult. It has been instructed to have faith and act with purpose, and our Father is, for now, watching from a distance, but his will has been made clear and continues to work in our hearts.
So what does this have to do with slavery, or any other specific issue? For me, everything. It provides a narrative, and perhaps the following insight: God doesn’t necessarily change, but we do. In humanity’s march from savagery to civility, God can only teach as fast as we are willing to learn.
So to finally answer your question, no, I don’t think God blesses or accepts any practice that removes a person of his/her rights and places them under total control of another.
Slavery is wrong, and so are the evils of violence, sexism, racism, and sexual discrimination. It is my hope, and I believe God’s as well, that sooner rather than later Humanity continues to more fully live according to the truth and example provided in Christ.
12 comments:
I agree that Christianity really paved the way to stop such savage treatment of people. In the late 4th century, it was Christians influencing Roman Emperors to stop the savagery of the gladiator games. And hopefully, it will be Christians to stop the hideous law recently passed in Afghanistan allowing husbands to rape their wives if their wives deny them sex.
However, I was referring to the early Jews. I agree with you in that Jewish laws concerning slavery were much more humane than, for instance, Philistine slave laws. Even Sumerian laws as found in the Code of Hammurabi concerning slavery treated slaves with dignity, almost as a member of the master's family--but the slave knew where he stood. One may argue, as you did Justus, that Hebrew commandments of slavery were a step toward the abolition of the practice. But it doesn't take away the fact that slavery was allowed, practiced, stated in the Old Testament as a commandment, and extremely limited rights of life to a person--even if it were better than the way Israel's surrounding countries were treating their slaves.
For some apparent reason (maybe Lumbee can explain it), Canaanite slaves could be held forever, even passed down to next of kin. This, I believe, as the Rabbi stated, is a type of social political relationship that was considered normal back then--but it doesn't make it right or moral simply because society says it is OK. Perhaps, the slave himself WANTED to stay with his master and the master's family, but the slave had no full right to leave when he very well pleased--again this is an abrogation of rights to one's life. The fact that someone can hold someone else forever implies that the slave has no right to his life and freedom. And because everyone has a right to their own life, no one is allowed to force someone into submission to another against their wishes.
Is this a micro-level analysis? Of course! How else will we know exactly what happened back in those days? We do know that "ebed" and "amah" were slaves. We do know that Canaanite slaves were probably held in perpetual servitude. We do know that slaves could not leave their masters whenever the slave wished to leave. We do know that servants and hired workers are not the same as slaves and should be treated differently.
I will have to go with the Rabbis on this one. It was typical of society back then, and we don't question G-d on these matters.
Good Professor,
Let me jump in on one point as I have limited time.
By the way Justus, I love your work, while I have a few, and I mean few differences...I am very happy to hear your point of view.
Back to Jose,
Where in the Bible does God command slavery?
He may allow slavery as a form of punishment (which I think explains much of the Caananite enslavement...read the book of Joshua), he may instruct his people as to how to operate in the evil world systems...which is my overarching understanding on the Bible's references to slavery, or he may use it to teach the pointlessness of the world's ways...but he NEVER commands us to enslave. Again, Jose, text dropping...you must take context, historicity, grammar, etc. into account if you want to be precise.
I want to go on record as saying I beleive in the plain, historical, grammatical, interpretation of scripture. I beleive that the 66 books of the Bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit as the very words of God. I do beleive the Bible to be perfect in the original autograph.
Just wanted to lay out my point of view.
Have a good Sunday, gentlemen...and professors:)
According to the Rabbis, ALL laws are Commandments, ALL by G-d. (See difference between Mitzvot and Rabbinical Law here: http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm)
There are roughly 613 listed in various Old Testament books. You can find a list of these commandments in this site: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
I can see slavery as a form of punishment if the slave himself had committed a crime. We actually do that TODAY. When a person commits a seriously heinous crime, he literally has no rights and belongs to the state for a limited time until he has served his sentence. But what about those who were innocent? I find it hard to fathom that the all loving G-d "allowed" for the enslavement of ALL Canaanites, including innocent ones, and can be passed down to next of kin, just because of the sins of Noach's son. Furthermore, cursing someone's descendants for the sin of one man is absolutely not warranted. What did the great great great grandchildren of the original sinner do that automatically makes them slaves? It just doesn't make sense. I hope you might explain.
In my reading of most of the verses of the Old Testament having to do with slavery, never once to did I read something to the effect of "slavery is immoral, don't do it." It's more like, "if you do have a slave of a certain type, then treat him like this and this and that." Can you see the difference between the two?
Ultimately, these slaves were not allowed to leave at will, even if they were innocent individuals. Why? Why weren't they allowed to be a servant and leave as they pleased? Why did the master have the ultimate say? I hope you might explain.
I'm not sure what I can add here, mainly because I have no insight as to why the Deuteronomic Code allows for keeping slaves any more than I know why the Code both prohibits the eating of any winged insects on the one hand (Deut. 14:19) while allowing for the consumption of winged insects that also walk on all fours with joints above their feet on the other hand (Lev. 11:20-23). But I digress.
I would observe that just because the Bible addresses a specific topic doesn't mean one must follow Bible's precepts. For example, Joseph, a Jew, would have been well within his rights under the law not just to divorce Mary, but to have her put to death on a charge of adultery. (Lev. 20:17) Yet, he chose not to seek either remedy under the law. Likewise in the discussion at hand, the fact that the Deuteronomic Code provides for the keeping of slaves doesn't mean that you ought to keep slaves. This approach is central to Jesus' criticism of the Sanhedron and their myopic focus on strict adherence to the law and harsh judgment for failure.
I guess the bottom line for me on this discussion is just because you are allowed to do something doesn't mean you ought to do it.
Lumbee, since you were kind enough to volunteer your own point of view on the Bible, I suppose its only fair for me to do the same so that we have a sense of where everyone is coming from. I take a slightly different view of scriptural interpretation. I believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirt and maintains a special position as the foundational and primary revelation of God. So in that sense it is perfect. But I don't think it is necessarily comprehensive, exclusive, or without error or omission. I'm not saying this to start an argument, as I completely respect and appreciate your perspective. I just thought I'd offer my view in the so we can better understand each other in the future.
Jose,
Your previous comment on Iran was:
"Our national self-interest should be that the U.S. cannot engage with Iran except to annihilate it from this world. We destroy the bad so that we can continue upholding man's life as the ultimate value."
Please consider the following statement:
"Israel's national self-interest should be that it cannot engage with its enemies except to annihilate or completely subjugate them. They are destroying the bad so that they can continue upholding God as the ultimate value."
I find it interesting that you support a strong US foreign policy hegemony, even though the result could be financial, political, and/or intellectual enslavement of peoples of enemy states, but have such a problem with an ancient civilization doing much the same.
1. Oh, Justus, did you just leave out a REALLY IMPORTANT phrase in your comment that did not exist in my comment? Does anyone else see it?
"or completely subjugate them."
Subjugate: To conquer, to make subservient.
I never have said those words, but you make the comparison as if I had. That's your first error. Are you able to see this error and why it is an error?
2. Hegemony: The dominance of one state over another.
You stated that I "support a strong US foreign policy hegemony."
I don't support a dominating state over another, that's imperialism. It has never worked, and it never will. I support the destruction of a government that abrogates the most fundamental of individual rights--one of those rights being YOU MAY PRAY TO AND IDOLIZE ANY GOD, ROCK, TREE, SPIRIT, SPIDERMAN, ZEUS, RA, OSIRIS, WITCH, MERLIN, WIZARD, THING, NON-THING your little heart desires. That's your second error, do you see that? This leads to your third error...
3. The Jews had every right to destroy a clan or tribe that abrogated the fundamental individual rights of others. If the Canaanites were sacrificing children, then it is justified for the Jews to destroy them. But if the Jews destroyed and/or subjugated the Canaanites because the sinners did not believe in the same G-d as the Jews, then that is immoral. Do you see the difference?
"upholding God as the ultimate value." I am not sure what you mean by this, but I am guessing that you are referring to the first four Commandments: I am your Lord the only G-d; no false gods; no graven images; do not take G-d's name in vain.
Believing in this is perfectly fine, but to destroy and enslave another country, tribe, or clan because they don't believe is immoral.
4. "the result could be financial, political, and/or intellectual enslavement of peoples of enemy states."
I don't know where you inferred that I condoned this. I will explain it again in the simplest terms: The US foreign policy should be that it has the moral right (not the duty) to destroy any country in which fundamental individual rights are non-existent. If the US chooses to destroy the enemy, then all it does is destroy the government and military that runs the country. That's it! No more! No less! No enslavement, no making their laws, no painting schools, no running their businesses. THE PEOPLE OF THAT COUNTRY who are left in the rubble of the destruction are the ones who decide what to do next. Good luck to them, I don't care. (Yes, it is very heartless the way I and Objectivism thinks in matters of war. But that's the only way to deal with evil dictators. At most, I would propose educating those who VOLUNTARILY wish to know about how to run a constitutional republic that upholds individual rights as its fundamental law. But I would not be involved in the politics, only in the education by choice, not by force.)
If I may -- we must be careful of the lens through which we view non-western cultures, especially ancient ones. I think this is where you go wrong, Jose. You are assuming paradigms of right and wrong based on your own modern, western philosophy. In considering the question of Hebrew slavery -- and remember they, themselves, were a nation born into slavery -- we must consider the politics of the world at that time. It is a very difficult thing to do since we are so accustomed to freedom in the United States. But ours is a free nation unlike any other ever seen before -- ESPECIALLY in the ancient world.
I agree with Justus: the answer to this question requires an over-arching look FIRST. (very nice description of human growth in time, btw. I never thought of it in terms of growing pains, but love the image.)
Analysis of specific codes of law must be understood within THEIR OWN context, not ours. I know this is what you are going for with the rabbis, but may I submit another perspective? (No disrespect to either you or them, but it seems to me they have lost their way a bit, being clouded with the modern world as well)
Ultimately, I think your question is how to reconcile the existence of evil with a God who "claims" to be purely good.
Can we move on from here and switch topic focus?
Rebecca, you said:
"You are assuming paradigms of right and wrong based on your own modern, western philosophy."
I am assuming models of right and wrong based on REALITY, not societal views. Right and wrong is not malleable just because a society says so. A cannot be non-A in one society, but not in another. Slavery in 19th century is just as wrong as slavery in Ancient Hebraic times, although both societies allowed for it, had laws for it, and even practiced it.
Philosophically, you have just made the error of reversing the second axiomatic concept of Objectivism, which states: Reality has primacy over consciousness. Your argument reverses this concept insinuating that "consciousness has primacy over reality." That is, just because a bunch of people say it is right, then it is right.
You and I have had previous conversations about how "majority rules" types of societies are actually evil. Just look at how when the "majority ruled" in Ancient Greece in stating that women should be 2nd or 3rd class citizens. Look at how the "majority ruled" in Afghanistan allowing men to rape their wives should the wives not give them sex. For this reason, I am totally opposed to a "democracy." I am for a constitutional republic based on individual rights.
Yes, I have a problem with your trying to reconcile the question of slavery and evil in human history through the lens of a very recent, capitalistic philosophy developed by a woman intensely opposed to communism.
And yes, I find it difficult to answer your questions when bound by the rules of that modern, western philosophy, especially when your questions have to do with God's plan for His people -- a frame of reference definitely more ancient, and more encompassing than said philosophy.
Justus has it right -- it starts by looking at the biblical perspective of humanity and history as a whole -- understanding the macroscope before you question with a microscope. Especially a microscope colored green (the color of money:) by Ms. Rand.
Very revealing about you, this problem of yours you mentioned above. You are going to be surprised at who actually disagrees with you.
"Especially a microscope colored green (the color of money:) by Ms. Rand."
Where did you get the idea that Ms. Rand's so-called microscope is colored green? Show me where you picked up this information.
Here is Ms. Rand's view of money and its value as expressed in "Atlas Shrugged" (very powerful!):
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
That was a joke, dude.
Not funny...DUDE.
Post a Comment