View Full Version : The Bible Denies Human Rights
There are three undeniable facts that the Bible teaches, starting in the Old Testament and continuing on into the New Testament, with the tacit approval of Jesus by the absence of his condemnation of these teachings.
Women are considered the property of men.
Women are to be in subjection to men.
Owning slaves is promoted in the Old and condoned in the New.
Rose
There are three undeniable facts that the Bible teaches, starting in the Old Testament and continuing on into the New Testament, with the tacit approval of Jesus by the absence of his condemnation of these teachings.
Women are considered the property of men.
Women are to be in subjection to men.
Owning slaves is promoted in the Old and condoned in the New.
Rose
Why blame the Bible?
The fact is that the whole of human history millions of years ago worldwide denies human rights to women. We should blame our ancestors .... the ape like creatures that we were evolved from!:winking0071: I guess Darwin must be wrong or stupid, male should evolved from female. :winking0071: and then there won't be male dominance over female.
Women are considered the property of men since milllions of years ago.
Women are to be in subjection to men since milions of years ago.
Owning slaves is promoted in the Old and condoned in the New as well as millions of years ago as war booty.
God Blessed all males and females.:pray:
Why blame the Bible?
The fact is that the whole of human history millions of years ago worldwide denies human rights to women. We should blame our ancestors .... the ape like creatures that we were evolved from!:winking0071: I guess Darwin must be wrong or stupid, male should evolved from female. :winking0071: and then there won't be male dominance over female....survival of the fittest.
Women are considered the property of men since milllions of years ago.
Women are to be in subjection to men since milions of years ago.
Owning slaves is promoted in the Old and condoned in the New as well as millions of years ago as war booty.
Want to blame? Blame Charles Darwin for his stupid Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.
God Blessed all males and females.:pray:
Hello Rose :)
When you say
The Bible Denies Human Rights you are indirectly comparing Bible, the divine word of the creator, with an earthly man-made thing that is called "human rights". In other words, you are saying that when human being enacts rights and laws, he can do it better, wiser and fairer than the creator of heaven and earth and even the human being itself! This inevitable premise is attached with your above-mentioned quote, and that's why it has made your statement appear false in common sense.
But I guess you are seeking some explanations about the position of the women in the Bible. But before that here are some facts that should everyone take into account before stepping into that sort of discussion:
1- Don't let your ambitious minds lead you into the valley of darkness! i.e. never poke around the questions like:
Why God has not made me as rich as a Rothschild?
Why God has not made me as attractive as a certain woman?
Why God has not made me a man!?
etc
2- Value what and who you are!
Acknowledge your differences aloud! Be proud of them! because you are part of this creation. You are not just another can in the assembly line. A divine plan has brought you into this world. You drive the narrative of life, you have been given the authority to choose. You can drive safely only if you walk with the word of God. Say,... I am a woman, Say....I am physiologically different (and say it loud). Say I am different. I can be the best mother. I can be the best wife. I can bring up a son or daughter who would walk with the word of God as well. Then...., you can enjoy your life, as far as you value who you are.
If you change perspective to the above frameworks, you would see that men are born not to rule over their wives, and women are not born to be object of their husbands. Man-Woman relationship is nothing but just another trial set by God. In this trial, whoever walks with the divine word will prevail, in this life and hereafter. But if any of the men or women fail this trial, if they fail this relationship as God has wanted them to be in his Law, they would fail just how Adam and Eve failed in the eye of our Lord in the garden of Eden (they repented and became fruitful ofcourse).
Here are examples of Man-Woman trials set by our Lord. take a look at them with the new perspective, where there is no object or subject in run, but it is all about competing to walk with the word of divine:
a. Adam and Eve
b. Pharaoh and his wife
c. Noah and his wife
d. Solomon and his wives.
e. Mohammad and his wives.
f. Jacob and his wives.
g. Avraham and his wives
etc.
In each one of the above cases, tens of lessons are laid. Those lessons are in the Bible...they show us, how each woman was important, how each man was important...to change the narrative of life of his/her partner's destiny or in some cases the life of a generation.
Hope this helps.
Ali.
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
03-27-2012, 08:11 AM
There are three undeniable facts that the Bible teaches, starting in the Old Testament and continuing on into the New Testament, with the tacit approval of Jesus by the absence of his condemnation of these teachings.
Women are considered the property of men.
Women are to be in subjection to men.
Owning slaves is promoted in the Old and condoned in the New.
Rose
I would reply with a comment that you understanding and interpretation of the bible allows for the things you mentioned above. Paul condemned the law in 2 Cor 3; and Romans 10; Jesus says that he came to bring an end to it. [fulfill it].
Adam was before eve; but all life including and especially the second Adam came through woman [and solely through God and Woman. After his deity was verified in his resurrection, We can almost hear the chants and cheers among the believing women and to their male counterparts:. "We bore Jesus, Yes we did... We bore Jesus how bout you?" :winking0071: :thumb:
Which could have been some of the context of Pauls instruction for the women to learn [experience] in silence IN THE CHURCH MEETINGS. Maybe this had a primary context of the time between pentecost and the full Revelation.??
In Jer 31 when the New Covenant is prophesied, it says that all woudl be taught by God through the indwelling of his Spirit. There is no distinction of male and female. To take a declaratory perspective of Pauls words in 2 Tim 2 would contradict Jer 31.
A proper understanding has the two genders complimentory and interdependant, yet independant. Just heard a peice on the local radio station recently that mentioned the type of spousal relationships that certain Indian tribes held. Your correct in that parts of mosaic law seemed to instill a subjectiveness to the female gender, and some of this has been carried over to what is referred to 'judeo'-christianity'; but that doesnt' mean it's an accurate perspective in the fuflilled new covenant.
Ez 14:22 is one place that sons AND DAUGHTERS of God are mentioned and it is a reference to the time of the escape from Judaism and Jerusalem.
I think your continually beating a dead horse AND a straw-man in your attempted attack against christianity, by using the OT national covenant or judeo-christianity as models. Several of these things were commented upon in a discussion with Richard about Pauls affirmation that the Law is called "not good' in the OT itself. [Is 65:2 which Paul quotes in Romans 10] It was good for a temporal time limit and until the seed promised to Eve and the Revelation of God would come.
Christ brought the highest dignity and esteem of life; that no one should cut down or put asunder what God had brought together. And he taught blessedness through Peace. Christ favors individuality, freedom and association. Jesus said that he came to bring life [freedom] and abundance. [John 10:10]
I would reply with a comment that you understanding and interpretation of the bible allows for the things you mentioned above. Paul condemned the law in 2 Cor 3; and Romans 10; Jesus says that he came to bring an end to it. [fulfill it].
Adam was before eve; but all life including and especially the second Adam came through woman [and solely through God and Woman. After his deity was verified in his resurrection, We can almost hear the chants and cheers among the believing women and to their male counterparts:. "We bore Jesus, Yes we did... We bore Jesus how bout you?" Which could have been some of the context of Pauls instruction for the women to learn [experience] in silence IN THE CHURCH MEETINGS. Maybe this had a primary context of the time between pentecost and the full Revelation.?? :winking0071: :thumb:
In Jer 31 when the New Covenant is prophesied, it says that all woudl be taught by God through the indwelling of his Spirit. There is no distinction of male and female. To take a declaratory perspective of Pauls words in 2 Tim 2 would contradict Jer 31.
A proper understanding has the two genders complimentory and interdependant, yet independant. Just heard a peice on the local radio station recently that mentioned the type of spousal relationships that certain Indian tribes held. Your correct in that parts of mosaic law seemed to instill a subjectiveness to the female gender, and some of this has been carried over to what is referred to 'judeo'-christianity'; but that doesnt' mean it's an accurate perspective in the fuflilled new covenant.
Ez 14:22 is one place that sons AND DAUGHTERS of God are mentioned and it is a reference to the time of the escape from Judaism and Jerusalem.
Hi Endtimes,
Glad you joined the conversation. :yo:
The favorite saying that men love to throw at women is the "no distinction between male and female"...which we all know is speaking of spiritual equality. If the authors of the Bible had really thought that women were equal with men, it would have been written far differently. Paul would not have included his famous lines of women being subject to men, men being the head of women, women not being allowed to teach a man, women being silent in church, and on and on it goes...
As I have been pointing out over and over again, the whole flavor of the Bible is one of denying human rights to people especially women...they were considered property and Scripture does nothing to rectify that problem! The same holds true for slaves, what was common practice and condoned in the Old Testament was not condemned, nor rectified in the New Testament by Jesus, or any of the apostles. In fact the problem of women as property, and people as slaves was amplified by exhorting those to submit to it.
I think your continually beating a dead horse AND a straw-man in your attempted attack against christianity, by using the OT national covenant or judeo-christianity as models. Several of these things were commented upon in a discussion with Richard about Pauls affirmation that the Law is called "not good' in the OT itself. [Is 65:2 which Paul quotes in Romans 10] It was good for a temporal time limit and until the seed promised to Eve and the Revelation of God would come.
Christ brought the highest dignity and esteem of life; that no one should cut down or put asunder what God had brought together. And he taught blessedness through Peace. Christ favors individuality, freedom and association. Jesus said that he came to bring life [freedom] and abundance. [John 10:10]
The problem is that the biblical horse of human rights is far from dead, it continues to have a far reaching affect on the lives of millions of people. Christ may have brought dignity and esteem to life, but he failed to condemn the moral atrocities that are so abundant in his fathers book.
It is one thing to teach spiritual equality as Jesus did, but quite another to tacitly allow inequality to continue by not speaking out against it, or declaring it wrong. As long as Christians refuse to admit the Bible contains gross violations of human rights that were commanded by Yahweh, they will remain trapped in a closed mindset of ignorance, unable to see beyond it doctrines and dogmas.
All the best,
Rose
Twospirits
03-27-2012, 09:53 AM
Rose wrote,
The favorite saying that men love to throw at women is the "no distinction between male and female"...which we all know is speaking of spiritual equality. If the authors of the Bible had really thought that women were equal with men, it would have been written far differently. Paul would not have included his famous lines of women being subject to men, men being the head of women, women not being allowed to teach a man, women being silent in church, and on and on it goes...
Hi Rose, here's an article that speaks of equality of women in scripture, thought I'd post it. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html
Sexism in the Bible: Is Christianity Sexist?
by Rich Deem
Introduction
Subjugation of Women?
Many churches treat women as second-class citizens, with few, if any women allowed to hold positions of authority. Does Christianity officially support the subjugation of women? What does the Bible say about these issues?
Rich Deem
The claim is often made that the Bible is sexist and that Christianity demeans women and makes them into second class citizens. While I do agree that sexism exists in Christian churches and that portions of scripture have been used to perpetuate sexism, the Bible does not condone discrimination in any manner. Men have cited verses about submission of women to keep believing women "in their place." Get out your Bibles and let's see what the Bible really says about women, submission, and equality.
Created in the image of God
Most people know that the Bible says God created man in His own image. However, many do not know that "man" includes both males and females. Both males and females are created in the image of God:
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)1 (See References at bottom of article).
This verse implies that the "image of God" encompasses traits found in both males and females and that the physical sexual differences between the sexes are not important characteristics in terms of how mankind was created in God's image.
Women as just helpers?
The story of women in the Bible begins in Genesis 2, where God says that it is not good that man should be alone.2 So God made a woman as a "helper suitable for him." Some would say that making woman as a "helper" is sexist. The Hebrew word translated "helper" is ezer, which occurs 21 times in the Old Testament. In 2 instances in Genesis, ezer refers to the woman Eve. In 16 of the other 19 instances the word is used to describe God Himself!3 Obviously, the term cannot be said to represent some sort of subservient role. An interesting sidelight to the phrase "helper suitable for him" is that the translation "suitable" is not the most common translation for the Hebrew word. In fact, the most common translation is "opposite." Anyone who is married knows that their spouse is often completely opposite from themselves.
Women in the Bible - not just mommies
The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mothers. Obviously, the biological function of women is to produce and care for children. However, Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel.4 Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.5 Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses.6 Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God7 or serving as deaconesses in the early Christian church.8
There are a number of other very strong women of faith described in the Bible. In fact, two books of the Bible are specifically about women, as indicated by their titles, "Ruth" and "Esther." Ruth is the story of the compassion and redemption of the gentile woman, Ruth. Naomi, Ruth's mother-in-law, fell into the unfortunate circumstances of losing both her husband and her two sons, one of whom was Ruth's husband. With nobody to provide for her and Naomi being "too old" to be remarried, she chose to go to Israel, where the laws and traditions required the Israelites to take care of widows, even if they were strangers. One of Naomi's daughter-in-laws chose to stay in the land in order to find another husband. But Ruth chose to go with her mother-in-law, even though this meant that she would probably never be married. However, Ruth was "redeemed" by Boaz, who married her despite the fact that she was a gentile. The line of Ruth and Boaz led directly to King David, and, of course, eventually to the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.
The book of Esther is the story of the rise of a young Jewish woman who found favor9 in the eyes of the Persian king, Ahasuerus (Xerxes), and became the queen of Persia. The former queen, Vashti, had refused to appear before the court when called by the king, and had been removed from the royal position. The king's prime minister, Haman hated the Jews and sought to destroy all of them through a plot of getting the king to unsuspectingly sign a decree calling for their execution. However, through the actions of the righteous Jew Mordecai, and the bravery of Esther in confronting the king, the decree was revoked and the conspirator, Haman, hanged. The Bible says that Esther had "come to royal position for such a time as this"10 - destined by God to save the Jews.
Other strong women of the Bible included Sarah, the wife of Abraham, who was preserved by the Lord despite the cowardly actions of Abraham in saying that she was his sister,11 and thus allowing her to enter into the courts of two kings (as a potential wife). Hannah is another example of a woman who had a strong spiritual walk.12 She was a woman of prayer and faith. Although she was childless for years, she had faith in God and her prayers were answered in giving birth to her son Samuel. She promised to give him back to the Lord, which she did by taking him to the priest as soon as he was weaned. Probably the strongest woman in the New Testament was Mary, the mother of Jesus. When the angel Gabriel told her she was to give birth to a son although a virgin, her response was, "May it be to me as you have said." A famous prayer of praise from Mary is recorded in the book of Luke.13
The ideal biblical wife
The book of Proverbs (which records the wisdom of Solomon) describes the ideal wife in its last chapter.14 She is, by no means, a weak woman who grovels at the feet of her husband. Instead, she takes charge over the care and needs of her family, and, in addition, the needs of the poor. She also manages her servants. In addition, she maintains her own business and from her own earnings buys land and plants vineyards. She is described as being wise, strong, and dignified, yet able to laugh. She is praised by her husband and children, who appreciate her hard work and commitment.
How Jesus treated women
When we look at how Jesus treated women, we discover the difference between the way God wants men to treat women and the way they were (and still are) treated by men in societies. The woman at the well is a prime example. When Jesus asked her for a drink, her first reaction was disbelief that he would even talk to her.15 When Jesus' disciples came back, they were surprised that He was talking to a woman.16 Jewish customs had become so legalistic that men (and especially rabbis) did not associate with women who were not their wives. Even now, orthodox Jewish men and women are prohibited from touching members of the opposite sex.17
In contrast, Jesus touched many women and allowed them to touch Him as He healed them.18 Although this was in direct opposition to the customs of the time, it reveals the nature of the personal God who directly touches people's lives. Jesus was compassionate to sinners and ministered to prostitutes and adulteresses. In a well-known example, some of the religious leaders brought a woman to Jesus who was "caught in the act of adultery." Obviously, the man involved in the adultery would have been there also, but they didn't bring him. As Jesus alluded to their own sins, the woman's accusers left. Jesus did not condemn the woman, but admonished her to leave her life of sin.19
Although all of Jesus' twelve disciples were men (there is good reason for this20), there were a number of women who were loyal followers and who ministered to Him and His disciples.21 The gospels record that the women were the first to hear the news of Jesus' resurrection from the angels22 and the first to see Him23 (since the men had gone into hiding or back to their original jobs after Jesus was crucified). In contrast to the gentleness and kindness with which Jesus treated women, He reserved His more scathing comments for the arrogant male religious leaders of His time. These He labeled as "serpents," "brood of vipers," and "whitewashed tombs."24
That "S" word - biblical submission
Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands."25 However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God,26 governmental authorities,27 our boss,28 and leaders in the church.29 We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa.30 God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order. What form does this submission to authority take? In every instance where submission is called for wives, it is conditioned with the phrase "as to the Lord" or some other reference to Jesus Christ. The submission takes on the form of being in the will of God. If the husband asks the wife to do something outside the will of Christ, she is under no obligation to follow him.
Accompanying each command for wives to submit to their husbands is the command for the husband to love his wife.31 In the book of Ephesians, this love is to be "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Such a love is not one that dominates and subjugates another person, but a self-sacrificing love that will give up its own life for another's.
The Christian Church is female!
This is going to come to a shock to most non-Christians (and maybe even some Christians), but God's people are referred to as female, not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion."32 The Church or body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ33 and God is said to be our "husband."34 Whenever referred to by sex, the Church is described as "she" or "her."35 In addition, the Greek word for church is a feminine noun.36
Conclusion
The essence of biblical equality can be summed up in Paul's letter to the Galatians:
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. (Galatians 3:28)37
Even though the world does not treat humans as equals, as members of the body of Christ, all are equal spiritually in the eyes of Jesus. In fact, those who exalt themselves (which includes many men) will be humbled and those who serve others (which characterize many women I know) will be exalted to a higher status in the kingdom of heaven.38 It seems likely that heaven will be a place that will be run by caring mothers and women who will have served others while living on earth.
Objections
On "headship" - This was probably more of a concession to culture than anything else. In first century Israel, women didn't have many rights or much opportunity for independence, so the husband was a sort of "covering" for her. Since he was legally and morally responsible for pretty much everything his wife did (Numbers 30:6-16), it made sense that she would defer to him in domestic matters. Besides, submission doesn't mean becoming a doormat - it means voluntarily laying aside one's own rights for the sake of the other, and husbands are instructed to love their wives sacrificially as well: "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25)31
On "keeping silent in church" - Women are more verbal than men, and when they get together, they tend to move from subject to subject. In the synagogues, the women were segregated from the men. If they had any questions on the worship or the teachings, they would have had to shout them over to the men, or discuss them among themselves, which would have resulted in an inability to maintain order. In addition, Paul emphasizes that his rules for church are given so that everything would be "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40)39 Disorderly communication, such as uninterrupted speaking in tongues, was also prohibited.40
On "not being permitted to teach" - Some interpret this passage to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church. However, commentators point out that Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching. Paul's commended co-worker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher (Acts 18:24-26).41 In addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of authority in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Romans 16:1).8 Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers (Romans 16:6, 12).8 Paul was very likely prohibiting the Ephesian women, not all women, from teaching. To understand these verses (Ephesians 2:9-15), we must understand the situation in which Paul and Timothy worked. In first-century Jewish culture, women were not allowed to study. When Paul said that women should learn in quietness and full submission, he was offering them an amazing new opportunity. Paul did not want the Ephesian women to teach because they didn't yet have enough knowledge or experience. The Ephesian church had a particular problem with false teachers. Evidently, the women were especially susceptible to the false teachings (2 Timothy 3:1-9), because they did not yet have enough Biblical knowledge to discern the truth. In addition, some women were apparently flaunting their new-found Christian freedom by wearing inappropriate clothing (1 Timothy 2:9). Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in the faith (1 Timothy 3:6). The same principle applies to churches today.
Twospirits
Hi Rose, here's an article that speaks of equality of women in scripture, thought I'd post it. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html
Sexism in the Bible: Is Christianity Sexist?
by Rich Deem
Introduction
Subjugation of Women?
Many churches treat women as second-class citizens, with few, if any women allowed to hold positions of authority. Does Christianity officially support the subjugation of women? What does the Bible say about these issues?
Rich Deem
The claim is often made that the Bible is sexist and that Christianity demeans women and makes them into second class citizens. While I do agree that sexism exists in Christian churches and that portions of scripture have been used to perpetuate sexism, the Bible does not condone discrimination in any manner. Men have cited verses about submission of women to keep believing women "in their place." Get out your Bibles and let's see what the Bible really says about women, submission, and equality.
Created in the image of God
Most people know that the Bible says God created man in His own image. However, many do not know that "man" includes both males and females. Both males and females are created in the image of God:
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)1 (See References at bottom of article).
This verse implies that the "image of God" encompasses traits found in both males and females and that the physical sexual differences between the sexes are not important characteristics in terms of how mankind was created in God's image.
Women as just helpers?
The story of women in the Bible begins in Genesis 2, where God says that it is not good that man should be alone.2 So God made a woman as a "helper suitable for him." Some would say that making woman as a "helper" is sexist. The Hebrew word translated "helper" is ezer, which occurs 21 times in the Old Testament. In 2 instances in Genesis, ezer refers to the woman Eve. In 16 of the other 19 instances the word is used to describe God Himself!3 Obviously, the term cannot be said to represent some sort of subservient role. An interesting sidelight to the phrase "helper suitable for him" is that the translation "suitable" is not the most common translation for the Hebrew word. In fact, the most common translation is "opposite." Anyone who is married knows that their spouse is often completely opposite from themselves.
Women in the Bible - not just mommies
The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mothers. Obviously, the biological function of women is to produce and care for children. However, Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel.4 Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.5 Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses.6 Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God7 or serving as deaconesses in the early Christian church.8
There are a number of other very strong women of faith described in the Bible. In fact, two books of the Bible are specifically about women, as indicated by their titles, "Ruth" and "Esther." Ruth is the story of the compassion and redemption of the gentile woman, Ruth. Naomi, Ruth's mother-in-law, fell into the unfortunate circumstances of losing both her husband and her two sons, one of whom was Ruth's husband. With nobody to provide for her and Naomi being "too old" to be remarried, she chose to go to Israel, where the laws and traditions required the Israelites to take care of widows, even if they were strangers. One of Naomi's daughter-in-laws chose to stay in the land in order to find another husband. But Ruth chose to go with her mother-in-law, even though this meant that she would probably never be married. However, Ruth was "redeemed" by Boaz, who married her despite the fact that she was a gentile. The line of Ruth and Boaz led directly to King David, and, of course, eventually to the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.
The book of Esther is the story of the rise of a young Jewish woman who found favor9 in the eyes of the Persian king, Ahasuerus (Xerxes), and became the queen of Persia. The former queen, Vashti, had refused to appear before the court when called by the king, and had been removed from the royal position. The king's prime minister, Haman hated the Jews and sought to destroy all of them through a plot of getting the king to unsuspectingly sign a decree calling for their execution. However, through the actions of the righteous Jew Mordecai, and the bravery of Esther in confronting the king, the decree was revoked and the conspirator, Haman, hanged. The Bible says that Esther had "come to royal position for such a time as this"10 - destined by God to save the Jews.
Other strong women of the Bible included Sarah, the wife of Abraham, who was preserved by the Lord despite the cowardly actions of Abraham in saying that she was his sister,11 and thus allowing her to enter into the courts of two kings (as a potential wife). Hannah is another example of a woman who had a strong spiritual walk.12 She was a woman of prayer and faith. Although she was childless for years, she had faith in God and her prayers were answered in giving birth to her son Samuel. She promised to give him back to the Lord, which she did by taking him to the priest as soon as he was weaned. Probably the strongest woman in the New Testament was Mary, the mother of Jesus. When the angel Gabriel told her she was to give birth to a son although a virgin, her response was, "May it be to me as you have said." A famous prayer of praise from Mary is recorded in the book of Luke.13
The ideal biblical wife
The book of Proverbs (which records the wisdom of Solomon) describes the ideal wife in its last chapter.14 She is, by no means, a weak woman who grovels at the feet of her husband. Instead, she takes charge over the care and needs of her family, and, in addition, the needs of the poor. She also manages her servants. In addition, she maintains her own business and from her own earnings buys land and plants vineyards. She is described as being wise, strong, and dignified, yet able to laugh. She is praised by her husband and children, who appreciate her hard work and commitment.
How Jesus treated women
When we look at how Jesus treated women, we discover the difference between the way God wants men to treat women and the way they were (and still are) treated by men in societies. The woman at the well is a prime example. When Jesus asked her for a drink, her first reaction was disbelief that he would even talk to her.15 When Jesus' disciples came back, they were surprised that He was talking to a woman.16 Jewish customs had become so legalistic that men (and especially rabbis) did not associate with women who were not their wives. Even now, orthodox Jewish men and women are prohibited from touching members of the opposite sex.17
In contrast, Jesus touched many women and allowed them to touch Him as He healed them.18 Although this was in direct opposition to the customs of the time, it reveals the nature of the personal God who directly touches people's lives. Jesus was compassionate to sinners and ministered to prostitutes and adulteresses. In a well-known example, some of the religious leaders brought a woman to Jesus who was "caught in the act of adultery." Obviously, the man involved in the adultery would have been there also, but they didn't bring him. As Jesus alluded to their own sins, the woman's accusers left. Jesus did not condemn the woman, but admonished her to leave her life of sin.19
Although all of Jesus' twelve disciples were men (there is good reason for this20), there were a number of women who were loyal followers and who ministered to Him and His disciples.21 The gospels record that the women were the first to hear the news of Jesus' resurrection from the angels22 and the first to see Him23 (since the men had gone into hiding or back to their original jobs after Jesus was crucified). In contrast to the gentleness and kindness with which Jesus treated women, He reserved His more scathing comments for the arrogant male religious leaders of His time. These He labeled as "serpents," "brood of vipers," and "whitewashed tombs."24
That "S" word - biblical submission
Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands."25 However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God,26 governmental authorities,27 our boss,28 and leaders in the church.29 We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa.30 God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order. What form does this submission to authority take? In every instance where submission is called for wives, it is conditioned with the phrase "as to the Lord" or some other reference to Jesus Christ. The submission takes on the form of being in the will of God. If the husband asks the wife to do something outside the will of Christ, she is under no obligation to follow him.
Accompanying each command for wives to submit to their husbands is the command for the husband to love his wife.31 In the book of Ephesians, this love is to be "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Such a love is not one that dominates and subjugates another person, but a self-sacrificing love that will give up its own life for another's.
The Christian Church is female!
This is going to come to a shock to most non-Christians (and maybe even some Christians), but God's people are referred to as female, not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion."32 The Church or body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ33 and God is said to be our "husband."34 Whenever referred to by sex, the Church is described as "she" or "her."35 In addition, the Greek word for church is a feminine noun.36
Conclusion
The essence of biblical equality can be summed up in Paul's letter to the Galatians:
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. (Galatians 3:28)37
Even though the world does not treat humans as equals, as members of the body of Christ, all are equal spiritually in the eyes of Jesus. In fact, those who exalt themselves (which includes many men) will be humbled and those who serve others (which characterize many women I know) will be exalted to a higher status in the kingdom of heaven.38 It seems likely that heaven will be a place that will be run by caring mothers and women who will have served others while living on earth.
Objections
On "headship" - This was probably more of a concession to culture than anything else. In first century Israel, women didn't have many rights or much opportunity for independence, so the husband was a sort of "covering" for her. Since he was legally and morally responsible for pretty much everything his wife did (Numbers 30:6-16), it made sense that she would defer to him in domestic matters. Besides, submission doesn't mean becoming a doormat - it means voluntarily laying aside one's own rights for the sake of the other, and husbands are instructed to love their wives sacrificially as well: "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25)31
On "keeping silent in church" - Women are more verbal than men, and when they get together, they tend to move from subject to subject. In the synagogues, the women were segregated from the men. If they had any questions on the worship or the teachings, they would have had to shout them over to the men, or discuss them among themselves, which would have resulted in an inability to maintain order. In addition, Paul emphasizes that his rules for church are given so that everything would be "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40)39 Disorderly communication, such as uninterrupted speaking in tongues, was also prohibited.40
On "not being permitted to teach" - Some interpret this passage to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church. However, commentators point out that Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching. Paul's commended co-worker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher (Acts 18:24-26).41 In addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of authority in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Romans 16:1).8 Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers (Romans 16:6, 12).8 Paul was very likely prohibiting the Ephesian women, not all women, from teaching. To understand these verses (Ephesians 2:9-15), we must understand the situation in which Paul and Timothy worked. In first-century Jewish culture, women were not allowed to study. When Paul said that women should learn in quietness and full submission, he was offering them an amazing new opportunity. Paul did not want the Ephesian women to teach because they didn't yet have enough knowledge or experience. The Ephesian church had a particular problem with false teachers. Evidently, the women were especially susceptible to the false teachings (2 Timothy 3:1-9), because they did not yet have enough Biblical knowledge to discern the truth. In addition, some women were apparently flaunting their new-found Christian freedom by wearing inappropriate clothing (1 Timothy 2:9). Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in the faith (1 Timothy 3:6). The same principle applies to churches today.
Twospirits
Hi Twospirits,
While many cases of equality can be cited througout the Bible, the undeniable fact remains that women were considered "property" and that idea was promoted and perpetrated by Yahweh. As I said in my previous post the favorite biblical saying of men to try and deny the inequality found in Scripture is to quote "there is no male or female in Chirst", but the problem with that is it's a spiritual reference. When it comes down to giving women equal rights with men the Bible fails miserably. I have shown verse after verse that blatantly denies equality to women, so no matter how many cases are cited where men give women some rights, far more are cited that deny them. If the Bible were truly a book inspired by God there would be no commands given from him that deny human rights.
Every citation given in your post above, is male justification trying to cover the fact that the Bible denies women their equal human rights. Women were considered property in the Bible, and neither Jesus, nor Paul denounced that fact...that in and of itself is enough to condemn the Bible as a male-biased book authored by men. There is no amount of justification that can diminish the biblical fact that women were considered the property of men, first their father's then their husband's...approved of, and promoted by Yahweh.
All the best,
Rose
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
03-27-2012, 04:51 PM
Hi Endtimes,
Glad you joined the conversation. :yo:
The favorite saying that men love to throw at women is the "no distinction between male and female"...which we all know is speaking of spiritual equality. If the authors of the Bible had really thought that women were equal with men, it would have been written far differently. Paul would not have included his famous lines of women being subject to men, men being the head of women, women not being allowed to teach a man, women being silent in church, and on and on it goes...
As I have been pointing out over and over again, the whole flavor of the Bible is one of denying human rights to people especially women...they were considered property and Scripture does nothing to rectify that problem! The same holds true for slaves, what was common practice and condoned in the Old Testament was not condemned, nor rectified in the New Testament by Jesus, or any of the apostles. In fact the problem of women as property, and people as slaves was amplified by exhorting those to submit to it.
The problem is that the biblical horse of human rights is far from dead, it continues to have a far reaching affect on the lives of millions of people. Christ may have brought dignity and esteem to life, but he failed to condemn the moral atrocities that are so abundant in his fathers book.
It is one thing to teach spiritual equality as Jesus did, but quite another to tacitly allow inequality to continue by not speaking out against it, or declaring it wrong. As long as Christians refuse to admit the Bible contains gross violations of human rights that were commanded by Yahweh, they will remain trapped in a closed mindset of ignorance, unable to see beyond it doctrines and dogmas.
All the best,
Rose
As mentioned to Richard, HE DID declare it wrong even in it's giving and again by the prophets...especially in Is 65:2.
I believe that he knew that the heart of mankind was in general condemnation and 'curse' due to incomplete knowledge and proof about Him and his love BEFORE. And he SPECIFICALLY chided the Pharisees for their attitudes.
There was a historical progression of knowledge and understanding that free-willed mankind had to 'experience' through God's sovereign controll of living history and fulfilled prophecy in order to provide evidence of His reality and Love in order for the circumcision of the heart through Knowledge of Him.
Again,
I would reply with a comment that your understanding, hermeneutics and interpretation of the bible allows for the things you mentioned above.
I would also counter that as long as people view the Revelation of Christ and the New Covenant from a judeo Christian legalistic mindset of law and oppression rather than Life, relationship, etc your observations may continue to accurately represent the general mindset. BUT Pauls letters were designed to be encouragement and specific instruction to a specific person and a specific set of circumstances; not necessarily dogmatic declarations.
And we've touched on your incorrect understandings and pulling out of intended meanings of some things such as Epesians before. There is little use in touching on them again.
Additionally, there is historical context to the reasons for his wriiting of the letters such as the statements you mentioned. One article I read was that Pauls comments to Timothy were in the setting of the Ephesians practiced belief of Diana? being created first, and that Paul was writing to Timothy to encourage the alternate perspective. Perhaps the women of the fertility cult adorned themselves with Jewlry.... etc.. etc.. etc.. There is context that your not taking the time to inductively research due to your antagonistic and pre-judiced mindset.
But the modern person....wrongly seeking to justify himself and set up NT Laws for himself to insure his "obedience" to 'christ' takes the words of Paul and makes a NT law for the church out of them. That wasn't his intention whatsoever. In 1 Cor I think it chapter 3 he reminds them that his letters are encouragement and instruction, not declaratory law.
There is also the context that Paul may be touching on the parameters of something that he may have taught them when in Person. He might not fully develop the subject as clearly as he could have since he was writing a LETTER of general instruction and thoughts to TIMOTHy; NOT a 'book' to later be accepted into a analysis and codified into behavior modification.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."-1 Timothy 2:12
Thouigh I don't think it's accurate, I actually like my example that after the virgin birth of Christ had been verified to all via his resurrection from the dead and that he was the seed that had been promised to come through Eve... they probaby had a chant or cheer going on. Their attitudes and spirits would have been soaring in comparison with some of the aspects of the OT which you mentioned. They [the gender] did GOOD. Mary believed the Angel!!!! THEIR GENDER brought forth, reversed and canceled and atoned for any foreknown mistakes {through the seed and His ministry and work].
This perspective... and it's a hypothetical one....or some other 'Situation" could have prompted Paul to write the words which you mention. But when we read them without the knowledge of the "Situtation" or the background, we read them as dogmatic, decalaratory 'laws' for the church.
That being said; The woman shouldn't LORD OVER a man any more than a man should LORD OVER a woman. King Jesus is the Lord and Spirit free-er of each individual regardless of gender.
In the case of the Ephesians, the culture may have been more woman domineering over a man due to the beliefs of the fertility cults.
Here is one such example (http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/women/suffer.shtml)of a fellow who understands the section and instructions of Paul to Timothy in this manner.
CArry on,
I'll jump in if I see somthing to contribute towards, but I'll not get caught up in a discussion about straw men laws.
As mentioned to Richard, HE DID declare it wrong even in it's giving and again by the prophets...especially in Is 65:2.
I believe that he knew that the heart of mankind was in general condemnation and 'curse' due to incomplete knowledge and proof about Him and his love BEFORE. And he SPECIFICALLY chided the Pharisees for their attitudes.
There was a historical progression of knowledge and understanding that free-willed mankind had to 'experience' through God's sovereign controll of living history and fulfilled prophecy in order to provide evidence of His reality and Love in order for the circumcision of the heart through Knowledge of Him.
If the Bible were truly a book inspired by God it could have been written far differently. When it comes to the worship of one god, or speaking out against idol worship the Bible has no problem in going against sociatal norms, so if that is the case there is no reason why the Bible couldn't have went against sociatal norms when it came to giving women equal rights. Over and over again the Bible speaks out against many things its god considers sinful behavior, but not once does it speak out against denying women equal rights...many times actually implementing the denial of those rights.
Again,
I would reply with a comment that your understanding, hermeneutics and interpretation of the bible allows for the things you mentioned above.
I would also counter that as long as people view the Revelation of Christ and the New Covenant from a judeo Christian legalistic mindset of law and oppression rather than Life, relationship, etc your observations may continue to accurately represent the general mindset. BUT Pauls letters were designed to be encouragement and specific instruction to a specific person and a specific set of circumstances; not necessarily dogmatic declarations.
And we've touched on your incorrect understandings and pulling out of intended meanings of some things such as Epesians before. There is little use in touching on them again.
If Paul's letters were intended for a specific audience then they should have never been included in a book that would serve as a moral guidebook to billions of people. If God is omnipotent, then he must be perfectly capable of have a book called his word contain exactly what he wants it to.
Additionally, there is historical context to the reasons for his wriiting of the letters such as the statements you mentioned. One article I read was that Pauls comments to Timothy were in the setting of the Ephesians practiced belief of Diana? being created first, and that Paul was writing to Timothy to encourage the alternate perspective. Perhaps the women of the fertility cult adorned themselves with Jewlry.... etc.. etc.. etc.. There is context that your not taking the time to inductively research due to your antagonistic and pre-judiced mindset.
But the modern person....wrongly seeking to justify himself and set up NT Laws for himself to insure his "obedience" to 'christ' takes the words of Paul and makes a NT law for the church out of them. That wasn't his intention whatsoever. In 1 Cor I think it chapter 3 he reminds them that his letters are encouragement and instruction, not declaratory law.
There is also the context that Paul may be touching on the parameters of something that he may have taught them when in Person. He might not fully develop the subject as clearly as he could have since he was writing a LETTER of general instruction and thoughts to TIMOTHy; NOT a 'book' to later be accepted into a analysis and codified into behavior modification.
Once again if the god of the Bible is truly real, then he is omnipotent and capable of having a book containing his message to be an accurate representation of his thoughts.
Thouigh I don't think it's accurate, I actually like my example that after the virgin birth of Christ had been verified to all via his resurrection from the dead and that he was the seed that had been promised to come through Eve... they probaby had a chant or cheer going on. Their attitudes and spirits would have been soaring in comparison with some of the aspects of the OT which you mentioned. They [the gender] did GOOD. Mary believed the Angel!!!! THEIR GENDER brought forth, reversed and canceled and atoned for any foreknown mistakes {through the seed and His ministry and work].
This perspective... and it's a hypothetical one....or some other 'Situation" could have prompted Paul to write the words which you mention. But when we read them without the knowledge of the "Situtation" or the background, we read them as dogmatic, decalaratory 'laws' for the church.
That being said; The woman shouldn't LORD OVER a man any more than a man should LORD OVER a woman. King Jesus is the Lord and Spirit free-er of each individual regardless of gender.
In the case of the Ephesians, the culture may have been more woman domineering over a man due to the beliefs of the fertility cults.
Here is one such example (http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/women/suffer.shtml)of a fellow who understands the section and instructions of Paul to Timothy in this manner.
CArry on,
I'll jump in if I see somthing to contribute towards, but I'll not get caught up in a discussion about straw men laws.
I'm not sure what you consider "straw man laws", but I can assure you that the way I am interpreting biblical doctrine is in keeping with what the Church has taught for two thousand years.
Rose
[QUOTE=Rose;42579]If the Bible were truly a book inspired by God it could have been written far differently. When it comes to the worship of one god, or speaking out against idol worship the Bible has no problem in going against sociatal norms, so if that is the case there is no reason why the Bible couldn't have went against sociatal norms when it came to giving women equal rights. Over and over again the Bible speaks out against many things its god considers sinful behavior, but not once does it speak out against denying women equal rights...many times actually implementing the denial of those rights.
Tell me which area in the world during the time of OT and the time of Jesus were women given equal rights? Where in ancient China or in ancient India or in ancient Egypt were women in those times given equal rights by your definition.Those were the prevailing societal norms throughout the world, don't blame on the Bible or God ok? Only in modern times do we see more equality between men and women. You cannot compare modern way of life with ancient way of life. It's like comparing modern day conveniences with ancient days. You might as well ask God why can't God gave the ancient people in Israel, China, Indai, Egypt, Rome modern day conveniences as we are enjoyng today....air teavel, air con, electric lights. cars, antibiotics, computers, cellphones etc. Isn't this unfair to the people of ancient times?
If Paul's letters were intended for a specific audience then they should have never been included in a book that would serve as a moral guidebook to billions of people. If God is omnipotent, then he must be perfectly capable of have a book called his word contain exactly what he wants it to.
You have misunderstood Pauls' letter. During Paul's time, many women were uneducated and were not experts in the scriptures and therefore better not to speak their opinion in the churches without making themselves look like fools or confusing others. During Paul's time, there were restrictions to both males and females as what it is today e.g. can a male enters a female toilet? can a male be a nun? etc.
Once again if the god of the Bible is truly real, then he is omnipotent and capable of having a book containing his message to be an accurate representation of his thoughts.
What do you think, should God published a book on everything science and mathematics for humans? Imagine yourself as an astronaut and you reached a planet in another solar system with primitive people and you give them your advance scientific knowledge and books and expect them to be able to understand? Progress must come in stages so is men and women equality. We have yet to reach the highest state of technological and scientific knowledge but we are making progress as we move on. So is men and women equality, we have yet to reach the highest state of men and women equality since creation but we are progressing through the years.
God Bless Us. :pray:
Twospirits
03-28-2012, 09:08 AM
Slavery has existed throughout most of recorded history. When or where it began is a mystery. At some point in time, groups of people must have decided that making slaves of captives of war and certain law-breakers was more advantageous than killing them. Why kill them when they could be of service? The same logic probably also led most primitive societies to decide that making slaves of a family hopelessly in debt was a logical and profitable solution to a perplexing problem.
Slavery was an integral part of the social, economic, and institutional life of the ancient Middle East. The Bible writers refer to it repeatedly as a fact of life. They neither endorsed nor condemned it. It was so intricately woven into the fabric of society that neither the patriarchs nor the nation of Israel could avoid being caught up in it. It was probably more humane than other alternatives people would have chosen at that time. Most of the people taken as slaves would have otherwise been slaughtered. Yet the Old Testament does not endorse it. On the contrary, it teaches principles which, had they been put into practice, would have led to its abolition.
The patriarchs, like the other rich chieftains of their day, owned slaves. But the slaves of the patriarchs were considered more like members of the extended family than property. Their living standard probably was far higher than most of the unattached poor. They enjoyed adequate food and shelter plus freedom from the fear of marauding nomads. In addition, the legal documents of that day (the Nuzi Tablets) make it clear that slaves had many rights, including recourse to the law when they were mistreated.
Although this slavery was quite humane, it never received God's endorsement. God often permits fallen mankind to do things He does not necessarily endorse. Does God approve of our present situation with one billion of the world's population living in poverty while millions live in unnecessary luxury? Is He pleased to see the prospering one-fifth of the world's population consume 86 percent of the world's wealth while the poorest one-fifth consume just 1.3 percent? To ask these questions is to answer them. Many of us wish these injustices could be remedied, but with all our intelligence we have not been able to set up an economic system that can bring about a fair distribution of the world's material resources. Under communism and socialism all but the government bureaucrats become poor. A free enterprise system produces great wealth, but the rich keep getting richer and many of the poor keep getting poorer. And when the government brings in controls, some of which are necessary, it inevitably brings with it a new set of evils and injustices.
The responsibility for the wars, injustices, and crime that have marked human history lies with us--our cruelty, our greed, our pride, and our prejudice. Patriarchal society was imperfect because it was made up of imperfect people. But given the conditions of those times in the open areas of the Middle East--periodic drought, sparse vegetation, and roving bands of robbers--it was probably as conducive to the well-being of the less fortunate as anything devised in later times. It certainly was far better than anarchy.
Herb Vander Lugt
Are the Laws in the Old Testament about rape and virginity unfair to women?
See full article here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html
Now, let’s look at the 'logic' of the importance of virginity for women …
The first thing to recognize is that this is not evidence for some kind of ‘double standard’ in sexual ethics. I have discussed this elsewhere ( http://www.christian-thinktank.com/w2stds.html ).
Secondly, ‘virginity’ as a condition is discussed as being applicable to both men and women in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor 7.25ff, according to most commentators), so this potential issue is only relevant to OT situations.
But the most important thing to understand about ANE (Ancient Near East) virginity (and marital fidelity, also) is its socio-economic function, in inheritance-based cultures. This is a critical element to understanding some of these issues, so let me try to sketch out this background.
Most sedentary cultures that are land-based are built on a very fragile foundation of property boundaries and family ownership. When land begins to be considered the ‘property’ of a family (as an economic foundation for community life and survival), the issue of family-continuance rises to the forefront. Issues of proper ‘inheritance’ are carefully worked out in the law codes, and even enshrined in religion and theology:
'Both the people of Israel and their land are designated as the ‘inheritance of Yahweh.’ The terminology is also employed outside Israel. Thus, the Ugaritic texts mention Mount Zaphon as the ‘inheritance’ of Baal, the place Hkpt (Memphis?) as the ‘inheritance’ of the god Kothar (identified with Ptah?), and the netherworld as the inheritance of Mot, god of death. The idea of a divine allotment of territories to the various gods of the pantheon is implied in the reference to Moab as the land of Chemosh in the inscription of King Mesha. At the beginning of the common era the tradition was still known to Philo of Byblos; he wrote that Kronos gave the city of Byblos to Baaltis, Beirut to the god Poseidon, and Egypt to the god Thoth.' [CANE:2048]
The importance of inheritance and property-transference can also be seen by noting that in the Laws of Hammurapi, the largest section is on ‘Family Law’, and in this section some 59 of the 69 laws deal with inheritance and transfer cases (see [OT:EML:36]).
In the ancient world, death was a constant threat, to parents and children alike. The senior parent/couple who owned the family land (which the extended family typically shared) were essentially responsible for two things:
1. enough 'genetic' family members to ensure that the land was worked [a labor issue]; and
2. a legally-recognized heir, who would be respected by the community and who would ensure the survival of the remaining family, after the death of the senior parents.
The need for 'genetic' labor, of course, was a procreation issue (although sometimes supplemented with semi-slave labor). The husband and wife needed to produce children who would survive to adulthood (always a tenuous situation, with child mortality and constant risk of death/illness), and this generally involved having as many kids as possible.
The community, of course, was critically dependent on their success, for the community relied on each family to be more-than-independent, and to contribute to the ‘surplus’ required to fund community life, protection, and activities. The community (as voiced in its leadership) tried to support both harmony in the family household, as well as procreational productivity.
The issue of a legally-recognized heir, was also related to the ‘genetic’ laborers, but the legal aspect of it made it critically important to be able to document conclusively an heir’s true paternity/genetic link to the parents. Proving paternity is one of the major assumptions of ANE law. This example shows how important it was:
'According to the patrilinear system, property was divided among sons or the surviving male line. The children of a dead brother also inherited. Nasty uncles were sometimes libelous in casting slurs on the paternity of a baby born posthumously. In the follow case, the boy’s uncles questioned his paternity once he was old enough to lay claim to his inheritance:
Ninurta-ra’im-zerim, the son of Enlil-bani, approached the (court) and faced the court officials and judges of Nippur, (and testified): ‘When I was still in the womb of Sin-na’id, my mother, Enlil-bani my father, the son of Ahi-shagish, died. Before (my mother) gave birth Khabannatum, my paternal grandmother, informed Luga, the herdsman, and Sin-gamil, the judge, (and) she sent a midwife and (the midwife) deliver me. When I grew up, in 20th year of Samsu-iluna…(his uncles attempt to question his paternity)…’ The court officials and the judges investigated the case. They read the earlier tablet with the oath. They questioned their witnesses, and discussed their testimony…The witnesses who knew the paternity of Ninurta-ra’im-zerim, affirmed (it) by oath and they (the judges) ordered the case brought back to the assembly…(Witnesses testified ‘Until she (Sin-nada) gave birth, they (the mother-in-law, the herdsman, the midwife, and the judge) looked after her. We know that Ninurta-ra’im-zerim is the offspring of Enlil-bani’'
'Such procedures suggested that the birth of important people was witnessed. There were also tablets with baby footprints, indicating their paternity, and the seal of the witness.' [OT LAM:148f]
Now, in a culture in which there could be absolutely no doubt/question about the heir’s legitimacy and paternity, the community law must strongly influence public behavior in support of ensuring that. This is for the community a critical function, needed to insure the orderly life and continuity of the always-fragile social order.
From a physical standpoint, of course, there is only one way to ensure that a specific child is indeed the ‘genetic’ heir of the household father: the mother must be a virgin at the time of marriage, and must be completely faithful to the husband until at least after the specific baby is born. There is no other way whatsoever—in the pre-DNA-testing ancient world—to be absolutely sure of this.
And the community must exert all its legal force on the populace to make sure these two items (i.e., virginity of a bride and fidelity of a wife) are protected by ‘high force’.
Practically speaking, what this means is that the legal system will ‘over-penalize’ violators of these. The ‘punishment will NOT fit the crime’ in such cases. And, since core survival values of a community are normally enshrined in capital punishments, looking at these can give an observer a quick-key to what is of critical importance to community continuity.
This means that we would expect that individuals who either violated an (1) engaged or (2) likely-to-be-engaged virgin to get the death penalty (or alternately, be forced to marry the woman—insuring the paternity of any subsequent children, obviously). And, we would expect that individuals who were responsible for adultery with a married woman (either the woman herself, or a rapist) would also get the death penalty.
Normally, rape is considered a serious crime, but is not considered a capital crime in most cultures. 'Normal', non-community-threatening crimes are generally assigned ‘matching severity’ punishments (a la lex talionis). [Just as law codes also distinguish between ‘misdemeanors’ and ‘felonies’]. When it is considered a capital crime, this tells you something important about the community’s survival needs.
A good example of this might be homosexual rape in the Middle Assyrian period. This was a crime, but not a community-threatening one, so the punishment was ‘matched’ to the crime:
'If a man sodomizes his comrade and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty, they shall sodomize him and they shall turn him into a eunuch [that is, castrate him]' [MAL 20]
But, almost universally, adultery carries the death penalty in the ANE—because of the criticality of being able to prove paternity…it was a major foundation of community existence and stability.
Now, what this creates is an interesting socio-economic dynamic. The larger the household and landholdings, the more important to the community and to the family for the absolute certainty of paternity. This places a tremendous value on (1) demonstrable virgins and on (2) women with the ‘promise of fidelity’ (i.e., from a 'good family'). The managing parents of a ‘rich’ household would diligently try to find a mate for a son that could satisfy these two criteria.
From the other side, the parents of a daughter would obviously seek the best possible future for her. This would generally mean trying to arrange a marriage into the most economically-stable family in the community, to provide the girl with every possible advantage for the future. This would primarily entail protecting her ‘demonstrable virginity’ to ensure that she would find a home in the highest-strata families. Needless to say, if the girl was deprived of her virginity via a rapist or seducer (and didn’t marry said individual), her probability of being sought out by families in desperate need for a demonstrable virgin (in other words, the families with the most inheritable property and land!) would drop to zero. This would make the task of providing for/ensuring the long-term welfare of the daughter that much more difficult.
What this means is that 'Virginity was certainly a very important asset of a marriageable girl in the ancient Near East' [CANE:489]
[Notice, though, that this ‘use’ of virginity primarily is NOT an issue of ethics or morality to the community! It is first of all a practical matter of ensuring orderly continuity and succession of citizenship and protection of inter-community boundaries. Matters of 'regular ethics' get assigned more ‘matching punishments’; matters of community survival get assigned ‘capital’ punishments. For the groom’s family it is a way to ensure orderly succession and continuity of care for the extended family. For the bride’s family it is a way to ensure the best possible future for the daughter. Virginity was more than simply a case of sexual purity; it had additional socio-economic impact, and this impact (common throughout the ANE) is likely the subject/dynamic of our OT verses.]
What was this mohar or bride-price all about?
It can be thought of as a ‘pension’ or ‘social security’ for the woman. It was kept by the father (out of the clutches of her husband!), but not ‘owned’ by him:
'Furthermore, it is probable that the father enjoyed only the usufruct of the mohar, and that the latter reverted to the daughter at the time of succession, or if her husband’s death reduced her to penury. This would explain the complaint of Rachel and Leah against their father, that he had ‘devoured their money’ after having ‘sold’ them (Gn 31:15)
'A parallel, though not identical, custom existed in ancient Babylonian law: the tirhatu, though not a necessary condition of the marriage, was usually paid over to the girl’s father, and sometimes to the girl herself. The amount varied greatly, from one to fifty shekels of silver. This sum was administered by the father, who enjoyed the usufruct of it; but he could not alienate it, and it reverted to the wife if she was widowed, or to her children after their mother’s death. In Assyrian law, the tirhatu was given to the girl herself. It was not a purchase price, but, according to two very probable theories, either a compensation to the girl for the loss of her virginity, or a dowry intended to assist the wife if she lost her husband.' [AI:27]
'Typical marriage customs would have included a payment made to the bride’s family by the groom or his family. This could provide a sort of trust fund to provide for the wife should the husband die, desert, or divorce her.' [OT:BBCALL, at Gen 29.18]
There is some evidence that this was a variable amount in Israel, and that it was negotiated by the parents. In some of these cases of rape and/or seduction, the price being paid is typically higher than what would normally have been paid, so this was both a disincentive for would-be rapists, and a compensation for 'lost opportunities' for the woman.
Of course, in OT covenant law, since the Lord was the founder, ruler, and a member of the community of Israel, every socio-economic aspect of it carried ethical dimensions too, from inheritance laws to social justice laws. The list of ‘curses’ that the people were supposed to recite—as a community declaration of its highest values—include a major property law (i.e., moving a boundary stone as a capital/cursed crime-!-showing again the criticality of land laws to the culture), as well as prohibitions against abuse of the impaired and against violation of the socially helpless (Deut 27.11ff). Notice that ‘moving the boundary’ is right up there with murder and incest.
Twospirits
Tell me which area in the world during the time of OT and the time of Jesus were women given equal rights? Where in ancient China or in ancient India or in ancient Egypt were women in those times given equal rights by your definition.Those were the prevailing societal norms throughout the world, don't blame on the Bible or God ok? Only in modern times do we see more equality between men and women. You cannot compare modern way of life with ancient way of life. It's like comparing modern day conveniences with ancient days. You might as well ask God why can't God gave the ancient people in Israel, China, Indai, Egypt, Rome modern day conveniences as we are enjoyng today....air teavel, air con, electric lights. cars, antibiotics, computers, cellphones etc. Isn't this unfair to the people of ancient times?
That is precisely the point Cheow, the Bible reflects exactly what was happening in the Bronze age world at the time it was written. The problem is that the Bible acts as if Yahweh created and commanded the laws that discriminate against women, when in fact the authors of the Bible were just copying the social norms that were prevalent at the time, and attributing them to the god they created.
The reason I say the Bible was written by men who created their own god, is because the male-bias it contains is identical to the male-bias that was and is common in the world.
You have misunderstood Pauls' letter. During Paul's time, many women were uneducated and were not experts in the scriptures and therefore better not to speak their opinion in the churches without making themselves look like fools or confusing others. During Paul's time, there were restrictions to both males and females as what it is today e.g. can a male enters a female toilet? can a male be a nun? etc.
What do you think, should God published a book on everything science and mathematics for humans? Imagine yourself as an astronaut and you reached a planet in another solar system with primitive people and you give them your advance scientific knowledge and books and expect them to be able to understand? Progress must come in stages so is men and women equality. We have yet to reach the highest state of technological and scientific knowledge but we are making progress as we move on. So is men and women equality, we have yet to reach the highest state of men and women equality since creation but we are progressing through the years.
God Bless Us. :pray:
It's truly a sad thing indeed to see that in every thread I have started that deals with the facts of women being denied human rights in the Bible, the only feedback I get is from men trying to defend and make excuses for Yahweh. Trying to shift the focus from the immoralities contained in the Bible and many times approved by Yahweh, to me. If only a fraction of all the verses I have shown to be discriminatory against women were fact, that would be enough to prove my point of the Bible denying women their human rights with the approval of Yahweh.
All the best,
Rose
Slavery has existed throughout most of recorded history. When or where it began is a mystery. At some point in time, groups of people must have decided that making slaves of captives of war and certain law-breakers was more advantageous than killing them. Why kill them when they could be of service? The same logic probably also led most primitive societies to decide that making slaves of a family hopelessly in debt was a logical and profitable solution to a perplexing problem.
Slavery was an integral part of the social, economic, and institutional life of the ancient Middle East. The Bible writers refer to it repeatedly as a fact of life. They neither endorsed nor condemned it. It was so intricately woven into the fabric of society that neither the patriarchs nor the nation of Israel could avoid being caught up in it. It was probably more humane than other alternatives people would have chosen at that time. Most of the people taken as slaves would have otherwise been slaughtered. Yet the Old Testament does not endorse it. On the contrary, it teaches principles which, had they been put into practice, would have led to its abolition.
The patriarchs, like the other rich chieftains of their day, owned slaves. But the slaves of the patriarchs were considered more like members of the extended family than property. Their living standard probably was far higher than most of the unattached poor. They enjoyed adequate food and shelter plus freedom from the fear of marauding nomads. In addition, the legal documents of that day (the Nuzi Tablets) make it clear that slaves had many rights, including recourse to the law when they were mistreated.
Although this slavery was quite humane, it never received God's endorsement. God often permits fallen mankind to do things He does not necessarily endorse. Does God approve of our present situation with one billion of the world's population living in poverty while millions live in unnecessary luxury? Is He pleased to see the prospering one-fifth of the world's population consume 86 percent of the world's wealth while the poorest one-fifth consume just 1.3 percent? To ask these questions is to answer them. Many of us wish these injustices could be remedied, but with all our intelligence we have not been able to set up an economic system that can bring about a fair distribution of the world's material resources. Under communism and socialism all but the government bureaucrats become poor. A free enterprise system produces great wealth, but the rich keep getting richer and many of the poor keep getting poorer. And when the government brings in controls, some of which are necessary, it inevitably brings with it a new set of evils and injustices.
Hi Twospirits,
The Old Testament most certainly does endorse slavery! Not only does Yahweh approve of slavery by the fact that laws are given for their care and treatment, but he also condones it by the fact that slavery is not once in the entirety of the Bible condemned.
The justification I so often hear that God allows fallen man to do things he does not necessarily approve of, is in and of itself an extremely weak argument. If that were truly the mindset of God, then why didn't he allow the pagans who were happily worshiping their idols to live in peace because they were just fallen men, or in the same manner that God commanded the Hebrews to slaughter pagans and take their land, Yahweh could have commanded the Hebrews to let their slaves go free, and give their women equal rights. Yahweh didn't have any problem having someone killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, so why should he have a problem with commanding the abolition of slaves?
According to the Bible, Yahweh had no problem commanding his people to do things that went against societal norms, take for instance the worship of one god...that was a totally new idea for the time period, but the Bible tells us the Hebrews were commanded to worship Yahweh. The fact is the idea of God allowing things to happen because of the fallen state of man is just an excuse to get the god of the Bible off the hook, whereas in reality if Yahweh were really the creator of the universe he could do anything he wanted to, so instead of commanding people to slaughter each other he could have commanded people to be at peace with each other and treat each other equally, but that's not what we read in the Bible.
The god of the Bible can be compared to a really bad parent who tells their children it's okay to go and beat up a kid and take his stuff, because that kid doesn't practice the same religion we do, but never teaches their child to treat all people with equality.
All the best,
Rose
[QUOTE=Rose;42594]That is precisely the point Cheow, the Bible reflects exactly what was happening in the Bronze age world at the time it was written. The problem is that the Bible acts as if Yahweh created and commanded the laws that discriminate against women, when in fact the authors of the Bible were just copying the social norms that were prevalent at the time, and attributing them to the god they created.No, You got it wrong, the Bible was written by men because men were more educated than women in the olden times. It was with approval from God whiich was why Jesus quoted from the OT. No doubt there is some errors in the Bible which obviously was man-made from scribes who copied from one another. No attempt was made by God to correct the errors as these were small errors and deemed not important. The fact that the important ones remained such as the ten commandments etc. are proof that these were important data needs to be remained.
The reason I say the Bible was written by men who created their own god, is because the male-bias it contains is identical to the male-bias that was and is common in the world.
Male bias as termed by you happens in every religious books and not just in the Bible. It is found in the Sutras, the Mahabhrata, the Koran etc. To me, God is real and not created by men.
It's truly a sad thing indeed to see that in every thread I have started that deals with the facts of women being denied human rights in the Bible, the only feedback I get is from men trying to defend and make excuses for Yahweh. Trying to shift the focus from the immoralities contained in the Bible and many times approved by Yahweh, to me. If only a fraction of all the verses I have shown to be discriminatory against women were fact, that would be enough to prove my point of the Bible denying women their human rights with the approval of Yahweh.
The sad thing is that women were deemed as the weaker sex and needs to be protected by men since primitive times. I am not sure why you always focus on human rights between men and women, why not focus human rights on the have and the have-not, on the rich and the poor, on the advantages and the disadvantaged people in this world? Isn't this much better; what's the point of having equal human rights between men and women but no equal human rights in other necessary things?
Denial of human rights based on your terms did not just happened in the Bible, it happened everywhere in society and it occurs to both men women and animals. So please, don't just blame on the Bible, blame on the society as well. This is why I said that society have not reach the state of perfection whereby men, women and animals are treated equally. It will only happened in the Kingdom of heaven where the state of perfect equality exists. I believe that Yahweh did not interfere with what we call poor human rights was because that was part of human development so that human will taste evil of what is like without God. That is also why Jesus did not interefere with what you call poor human rights. Which is also why as times goes by from the OT to the NT, human rights seemed to improve and it will continue to improve to this day. But unfortunately, human can not solved the equality of human rights by himself which is why human rights is still lacking in many parts of the world.
Rose, may I request that you answer my questions so that we can get a better understanding of your terms of human rights. To be fair, I am not talking about human rights as portray in the Bible:
1. The gap between the rich and the poor is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
2. Everyone playing their parts in more or less equal ways to achieve a common goal is equal human right. Yes or No?
3. If men can do it so can women is equal human right. Yes or No?
4. If men have penis so can women; if women have breast so can men is equal human right. In other words, the physical differences in men and women is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
5. People living in the convenience of modern living while those living in ancient times without modern day conveniences is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
6. Human rights between men and wiomen is now much better compared to ancient times. Yes or No?
7. There were hardly any human rights in ancient times. Yes or No?
8. Men have more human rights than women in the ancient times. Yes or No?
9. Equal human rights mean everyone must be the same...same treatment, same healthcare, same standard of living, same laws, etc. Yes or No?
10. Animals should have human rights also. Yes or No?
Many God's Blessings to all.:pray:
David M
03-29-2012, 01:30 AM
Hello Rose
so instead of commanding people to slaughter each other he could have commanded people to be at peace with each other and treat each other equally,
You made no comment when I said; "do you think if the Israelites had asked politely the people living in the land to leave they would have done so?"
I guess you know what their response would have been. Your statement above is naive to say the least. It is a non-starter. God has told man how to live for thousands of years, even set out commandments to keep to ensure no private interpretation of what is required and it has made little difference.
Jeremiah got it dead right; The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:
Rose to quote [anon]; "Get real"
David
Hello Rose
You made no comment when I said; "do you think if the Israelites had asked politely the people living in the land to leave they would have done so?"
I guess you know what their response would have been. Your statement above is naive to say the least. It is a non-starter. God has told man how to live for thousands of years, even set out commandments to keep to ensure no private interpretation of what is required and it has made little difference.
Jeremiah got it dead right; The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:
Rose to quote [anon]; "Get real"
David
Good morning David, :yo:
What does asking the Israelite's politely to leave the land have to do with my point? God didn't ask the Hebrews if they wanted to slaughter all the people, take their land, and show them no mercy...he COMMANDED THEM TO! Yahweh seemed to have no problem telling the Hebrews to have no other gods and worship him only under threat of death. If Yahweh wants something done he seems to have no problem telling people to "do it or die!"
I think maybe you are the one who needs to "get real"
Rose
Twospirits
03-29-2012, 09:04 AM
Rose wrote,
The Old Testament most certainly does endorse slavery! Not only does Yahweh approve of slavery by the fact that laws are given for their care and treatment, but he also condones it by the fact that slavery is not once in the entirety of the Bible condemned.
Giving laws for the care and treatment of biblical "slaves" does not mean God condoned and endorsed slavery.
"Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom..." [NS:ECA:4:1190f]
"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]
The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html An in-depth study of OT 'slavery,' a most read!
The Old Testament and slavery Herb Vander Lugt http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/q1109/q1109.html
Let's examine the Old Testament references to slavery in three distinct, historical eras:
1. Slavery as predicted by Noah
2. Slavery as practiced by the patriarchs
3. Slavery as regulated in Israel
The first mention of slavery in the Bible is found in Noah's declaration, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers" (Gen. 9:25). God gave Noah a prophetic knowledge of the future. The Canaanites developed an advanced society but became involved in despicable moral and spiritual practices, including ritual prostitution, sexual orgies, and child sacrifice. That is why God warned the Israelites against any association with Canaan's citizens (Lev. 18:24-30). Because He knew that the danger of spiritual contamination for His people was so great, He commanded the execution of all the Canaanites who resisted their advance and the complete destruction of every trace of their religion (Dt. 7:1-6). It was the failure of the Israelites to follow God's directions that brought about the fulfillment of Noah's prophecy. Their negligence to consult God led to their being tricked into making slaves of the Gibeonites instead of driving them out of the land or killing them (Josh. 9). Later, they did the same with another group of Canaanites (16:10).
The book of Genesis does not inform us about the laws regulating slavery during patriarchal times. However, the Middle Eastern legal documents of that time, known as the Nuzi Tablets, detail many of the rights and privileges of slaves and their descendants. And the Genesis narratives portray the slaves as being treated more like family members than as property. (See in-depth source link above (a must read) for 'eastern near east laws').
The patriarchs, like the other rich chieftains of their day, owned slaves. But the slaves of the patriarchs were considered more like members of the extended family than property. Their living standard probably was far higher than most of the unattached poor. They enjoyed adequate food and shelter plus freedom from the fear of marauding nomads. In addition, the legal documents of that day (the Nuzi Tablets) make it clear that slaves had many rights, including recourse to the law when they were mistreated.
The first 12 chapters of Exodus tell the story of how the Lord responded to the cries of His people. He miraculously provided Moses to be their leader, sent 10 plagues on the Egyptians, helped the Israelites celebrate their first Passover, and led them out of the land of bondage. It appears that as they left for Canaan, they had no slaves. The former distinctions between masters and slaves had been wiped out during their own time of bondage. The "many other people" (Ex. 12:38) who accompanied them were Egyptians who for one reason or another were eager to leave their homeland.
It may seem strange that God gave these slaveless people instructions about the eligibility of slaves to eat the Passover immediately after their departure (Ex. 12:43-45). But we must think of the circumstances. He knew that His people could not be a nation in the Middle East of that day without encountering this practice. He knew that on the way to Canaan they would inevitably engage enemies, capture soldiers, and be forced to choose between killing them or mercifully making them slaves. Undoubtedly God also foresaw the voluntary surrender of non-Canaanite peoples who preferred slavery in Israel to military combat (Dt. 20:10-15).
Remember too, at that time no nation had the ability to deal with people who had gotten themselves hopelessly in debt. So they were allowed to sell themselves into slavery (often temporarily) in exchange for release from their financial obligations (Ex. 21:2-4; Lev. 25:39-43; Dt. 15:12). The situation was such that the Israelites could not abolish the slave trade.
God always prefers that goodness and kindness on the part of His people arise out of moral choice rather than enforced legislation. So before giving them detailed rules for their treatment of slaves, God appealed to the collective conscience of the Israelites. He did this by keeping alive among them the remembrance that they were slaves when He miraculously delivered them from Egypt.
The first such reminder appears in His preamble to the Ten Commandments: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" (Ex. 20:2). A truly grateful people would want to obey God. Since the essence of the Ten Commandments is to love God above all and to love one's neighbor as one's self (Mt. 22:37-40), proper gratitude would have provided an inner motivation to be kind to all the less fortunate among them.
A second reminder of the past appears in Exodus 23:9. "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt." This reminder provided a spiritual incentive for the wealthy to obey the laws that focused primarily on protecting the poor. The Sabbath regulations could have been offensive to the wealthy because those laws specifically provided that the "poor," the "slave," and the "alien" (vv.11-12) share equally with the landowners the benefits of free food and complete rest from daily toil.
Hebrew Slaves And Their Time Of Servitude. A Hebrew who became a slave (usually because he was unable to pay his debts) could not be kept in bondage for more than 6 years. If he married while he was a slave, he had to make a choice when his time for release arrived. He could choose to go free and leave his wife and children with his master. Or, if he loved his master and valued his family more than personal freedom, he could choose to remain with him for life (Ex. 21:2-6).
Female Hebrew Slaves And Their Rights. Sometimes a father in financial difficulty would sell a young daughter to a fellow Israelite to be the wife of a family member when she came of age. If no family member claimed her, the purchaser could offer her to a friend or relative for the dowry price. If she remained unclaimed, she was to be released with no strings attached (Ex. 21:7-11). She could never be sold on the open slave market.
While this rule gave daughters in Israel more protection than was given in neighboring nations, it troubles us. We are revolted at the idea of a father selling his daughter under any circumstances. We may wonder why God modified this practice instead of eliminating it. But that overlooks the fact that in the Near East culture of that time the absolute rights of parents over their children, especially the daughters, was universally assumed. For example, they arranged the marriages of sons and daughters. Their right to do so was never questioned. Therefore, it would have been neither possible nor profitable to legislate into that culture regulations that would give children the rights they possess today.
While we can't be fully satisfied with the conditions that prevailed in Bible times in the Middle East, we must recognize that godly people then loved their children just as much as we do today. We have reason to believe that they considered the wishes of their daughters when giving them in marriage.
For example, consider the story of Rebekah and Isaac (Gen. 24). Abraham's servant told Rebekah's father and brother his desire to take her to be Isaac's wife. Notice that they asked her if she were willing to go before they sent her to her new home (vv.57-58). Few parents would run roughshod over the wishes of their daughters. And for those who might do so, God provided laws to protect girls from being exploited.
The Civil Rights Of Non-Hebrew Slaves. The non-Hebrew slaves, though not eligible for release like the Hebrew slaves, did receive considerable protection from inhumane treatment. The law said, "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished" (Ex. 21:20). While the punishment is not defined, it probably was the death penalty. The regulation that is listed after the severe sentence for the killing of a slave has troubled me for years because it seems too lenient. It reads, "But he [the slaveowner] is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property" (Ex. 21:21). A beating that incapacitated a slave for a day or two was quite severe. But I have come to the conclusion that there may have been other factors to consider.
Laws Of Asylum And Extradition. Runaway slaves in Israel were granted asylum. If a slave managed to escape into another town, the authorities there could not force him to return to his owner. They were to allow him freedom to live where he chose and do what he chose to do (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). By this law, God showed that though He permitted slavery in Israel because of its inevitability in the world of that day, He did not view the holding of slaves as a basic right to be protected.
This law served another purpose for the owners of slaves. In addition to revealing God's attitude toward slave ownership, it provided them with an added incentive to be kind to their slaves. If they valued a slave, they would be inclined to treat him with kindness and respect so that he would not want to run away. This law also provided a way out for a slave who was either grossly mistreated or simply could not live with the idea of being the property of another man or woman.
Slaves in Israel were usually domestic workers in the homes of the wealthy and were treated as family members. Those in agriculture apparently worked alongside hired men and women (as in the story of Ruth). Some people who were captured from neighboring nations were made slaves of the state or served in the maintenance of the temple complex (Num. 31:28-30,41; Josh. 9:23; 16:10; Jud. 1:28; 1 Ki. 9:20-21; Ezra 2:43-58; 8:20; Neh. 3:31; 7:46-60). But the biblical record indicates that they were treated well. They probably considered themselves fortunate to be in Israel instead of another country.
Israel's humane treatment of slaves can undoubtedly be traced back to God's reminders of their own slavery in Egypt. His laws providing protection for them and His legislation about runaway slaves indicated that slave ownership was not sacrosanct. The fact of the matter is that although God permitted and regulated slavery in Israel, He neither endorsed it nor made slave ownership an inviolable right.
Slavery was an integral part of the social, economic, and institutional life of the ancient Middle East. The Bible writers refer to it repeatedly as a fact of life. They neither endorsed nor condemned it. It was so intricately woven into the fabric of society that neither the patriarchs nor the nation of Israel could avoid being caught up in it. It was probably more humane than other alternatives people would have chosen at that time. Most of the people taken as slaves would have otherwise been slaughtered. Yet the Old Testament does not endorse it. On the contrary, it teaches principles which, had they been put into practice, would have led to its abolition.
Twospirits
[QUOTE]No, You got it wrong, the Bible was written by men because men were more educated than women in the olden times. It was with approval from God whiich was why Jesus quoted from the OT. No doubt there is some errors in the Bible which obviously was man-made from scribes who copied from one another. No attempt was made by God to correct the errors as these were small errors and deemed not important. The fact that the important ones remained such as the ten commandments etc. are proof that these were important data needs to be remained.
Male bias as termed by you happens in every religious books and not just in the Bible. It is found in the Sutras, the Mahabhrata, the Koran etc. To me, God is real and not created by men.
The sad thing is that women were deemed as the weaker sex and needs to be protected by men since primitive times. I am not sure why you always focus on human rights between men and women, why not focus human rights on the have and the have-not, on the rich and the poor, on the advantages and the disadvantaged people in this world? Isn't this much better; what's the point of having equal human rights between men and women but no equal human rights in other necessary things?
Denial of human rights based on your terms did not just happened in the Bible, it happened everywhere in society and it occurs to both men women and animals. So please, don't just blame on the Bible, blame on the society as well. This is why I said that society have not reach the state of perfection whereby men, women and animals are treated equally. It will only happened in the Kingdom of heaven where the state of perfect equality exists. I believe that Yahweh did not interfere with what we call poor human rights was because that was part of human development so that human will taste evil of what is like without God. That is also why Jesus did not interefere with what you call poor human rights. Which is also why as times goes by from the OT to the NT, human rights seemed to improve and it will continue to improve to this day. But unfortunately, human can not solved the equality of human rights by himself which is why human rights is still lacking in many parts of the world.
Rose, may I request that you answer my questions so that we can get a better understanding of your terms of human rights. To be fair, I am not talking about human rights as portray in the Bible:
1. The gap between the rich and the poor is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
2. Everyone playing their parts in more or less equal ways to achieve a common goal is equal human right. Yes or No?
3. If men can do it so can women is equal human right. Yes or No?
4. If men have penis so can women; if women have breast so can men is equal human right. In other words, the physical differences in men and women is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
5. People living in the convenience of modern living while those living in ancient times without modern day conveniences is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
6. Human rights between men and wiomen is now much better compared to ancient times. Yes or No?
7. There were hardly any human rights in ancient times. Yes or No?
8. Men have more human rights than women in the ancient times. Yes or No?
9. Equal human rights mean everyone must be the same...same treatment, same healthcare, same standard of living, same laws, etc. Yes or No?
10. Animals should have human rights also. Yes or No?
Many God's Blessings to all.:pray:
Hello Cheow :yo:
I think I need to educate you on the meaning of human rights. You seem to think that equality and human rights means men having breasts, or women having penises. Human rights means that all people are entitled to share in the fullness of life and all it has to offer...NOT to be told by men that they can't have an education, or they are the property of a man because of their gender or race. All people should be judged on their merits and ability to do whatever it is they wish...the same rights for all people.
The Bible is sorely lacking in human rights, especially for women...which points to my claim of its extreme male-bias.
Rose
Giving laws for the care and treatment of biblical "slaves" does not mean God condoned and endorsed slavery.
Of course it does! The Bible would not have given laws to govern slaves if its god did not approve of and condone it. As I have said numerous times before, if Yahweh disapproved of something he made a law against it and people were punished for breaking that law. Yahweh did not want sticks to be picked up on the Sabbath (work), so he made a law against it. If Yahweh had not wanted slavery to take place he would have made a law against it. This all proves my point of the Bible being written by men who constructed laws to suit their own desires.
"Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom..." [NS:ECA:4:1190f]
"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]
The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html An in-depth study of OT 'slavery,' a most read!
The Old Testament and slavery Herb Vander Lugt http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/q1109/q1109.html
Let's examine the Old Testament references to slavery in three distinct, historical eras:
1. Slavery as predicted by Noah
2. Slavery as practiced by the patriarchs
3. Slavery as regulated in Israel
The first mention of slavery in the Bible is found in Noah's declaration, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers" (Gen. 9:25). God gave Noah a prophetic knowledge of the future. The Canaanites developed an advanced society but became involved in despicable moral and spiritual practices, including ritual prostitution, sexual orgies, and child sacrifice. That is why God warned the Israelites against any association with Canaan's citizens (Lev. 18:24-30). Because He knew that the danger of spiritual contamination for His people was so great, He commanded the execution of all the Canaanites who resisted their advance and the complete destruction of every trace of their religion (Dt. 7:1-6). It was the failure of the Israelites to follow God's directions that brought about the fulfillment of Noah's prophecy. Their negligence to consult God led to their being tricked into making slaves of the Gibeonites instead of driving them out of the land or killing them (Josh. 9). Later, they did the same with another group of Canaanites (16:10).
The book of Genesis does not inform us about the laws regulating slavery during patriarchal times. However, the Middle Eastern legal documents of that time, known as the Nuzi Tablets, detail many of the rights and privileges of slaves and their descendants. And the Genesis narratives portray the slaves as being treated more like family members than as property. (See in-depth source link above (a must read) for 'eastern near east laws').
The patriarchs, like the other rich chieftains of their day, owned slaves. But the slaves of the patriarchs were considered more like members of the extended family than property. Their living standard probably was far higher than most of the unattached poor. They enjoyed adequate food and shelter plus freedom from the fear of marauding nomads. In addition, the legal documents of that day (the Nuzi Tablets) make it clear that slaves had many rights, including recourse to the law when they were mistreated.
The first 12 chapters of Exodus tell the story of how the Lord responded to the cries of His people. He miraculously provided Moses to be their leader, sent 10 plagues on the Egyptians, helped the Israelites celebrate their first Passover, and led them out of the land of bondage. It appears that as they left for Canaan, they had no slaves. The former distinctions between masters and slaves had been wiped out during their own time of bondage. The "many other people" (Ex. 12:38) who accompanied them were Egyptians who for one reason or another were eager to leave their homeland.
It may seem strange that God gave these slaveless people instructions about the eligibility of slaves to eat the Passover immediately after their departure (Ex. 12:43-45). But we must think of the circumstances. He knew that His people could not be a nation in the Middle East of that day without encountering this practice. He knew that on the way to Canaan they would inevitably engage enemies, capture soldiers, and be forced to choose between killing them or mercifully making them slaves. Undoubtedly God also foresaw the voluntary surrender of non-Canaanite peoples who preferred slavery in Israel to military combat (Dt. 20:10-15).
Remember too, at that time no nation had the ability to deal with people who had gotten themselves hopelessly in debt. So they were allowed to sell themselves into slavery (often temporarily) in exchange for release from their financial obligations (Ex. 21:2-4; Lev. 25:39-43; Dt. 15:12). The situation was such that the Israelites could not abolish the slave trade.
God always prefers that goodness and kindness on the part of His people arise out of moral choice rather than enforced legislation. So before giving them detailed rules for their treatment of slaves, God appealed to the collective conscience of the Israelites. He did this by keeping alive among them the remembrance that they were slaves when He miraculously delivered them from Egypt.
The first such reminder appears in His preamble to the Ten Commandments: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" (Ex. 20:2). A truly grateful people would want to obey God. Since the essence of the Ten Commandments is to love God above all and to love one's neighbor as one's self (Mt. 22:37-40), proper gratitude would have provided an inner motivation to be kind to all the less fortunate among them.
A second reminder of the past appears in Exodus 23:9. "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt." This reminder provided a spiritual incentive for the wealthy to obey the laws that focused primarily on protecting the poor. The Sabbath regulations could have been offensive to the wealthy because those laws specifically provided that the "poor," the "slave," and the "alien" (vv.11-12) share equally with the landowners the benefits of free food and complete rest from daily toil.
Hebrew Slaves And Their Time Of Servitude. A Hebrew who became a slave (usually because he was unable to pay his debts) could not be kept in bondage for more than 6 years. If he married while he was a slave, he had to make a choice when his time for release arrived. He could choose to go free and leave his wife and children with his master. Or, if he loved his master and valued his family more than personal freedom, he could choose to remain with him for life (Ex. 21:2-6).
Female Hebrew Slaves And Their Rights. Sometimes a father in financial difficulty would sell a young daughter to a fellow Israelite to be the wife of a family member when she came of age. If no family member claimed her, the purchaser could offer her to a friend or relative for the dowry price. If she remained unclaimed, she was to be released with no strings attached (Ex. 21:7-11). She could never be sold on the open slave market.
While this rule gave daughters in Israel more protection than was given in neighboring nations, it troubles us. We are revolted at the idea of a father selling his daughter under any circumstances. We may wonder why God modified this practice instead of eliminating it. But that overlooks the fact that in the Near East culture of that time the absolute rights of parents over their children, especially the daughters, was universally assumed. For example, they arranged the marriages of sons and daughters. Their right to do so was never questioned. Therefore, it would have been neither possible nor profitable to legislate into that culture regulations that would give children the rights they possess today.
While we can't be fully satisfied with the conditions that prevailed in Bible times in the Middle East, we must recognize that godly people then loved their children just as much as we do today. We have reason to believe that they considered the wishes of their daughters when giving them in marriage.
For example, consider the story of Rebekah and Isaac (Gen. 24). Abraham's servant told Rebekah's father and brother his desire to take her to be Isaac's wife. Notice that they asked her if she were willing to go before they sent her to her new home (vv.57-58). Few parents would run roughshod over the wishes of their daughters. And for those who might do so, God provided laws to protect girls from being exploited.
The Civil Rights Of Non-Hebrew Slaves. The non-Hebrew slaves, though not eligible for release like the Hebrew slaves, did receive considerable protection from inhumane treatment. The law said, "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished" (Ex. 21:20). While the punishment is not defined, it probably was the death penalty. The regulation that is listed after the severe sentence for the killing of a slave has troubled me for years because it seems too lenient. It reads, "But he [the slaveowner] is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property" (Ex. 21:21). A beating that incapacitated a slave for a day or two was quite severe. But I have come to the conclusion that there may have been other factors to consider.
Laws Of Asylum And Extradition. Runaway slaves in Israel were granted asylum. If a slave managed to escape into another town, the authorities there could not force him to return to his owner. They were to allow him freedom to live where he chose and do what he chose to do (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). By this law, God showed that though He permitted slavery in Israel because of its inevitability in the world of that day, He did not view the holding of slaves as a basic right to be protected.
This law served another purpose for the owners of slaves. In addition to revealing God's attitude toward slave ownership, it provided them with an added incentive to be kind to their slaves. If they valued a slave, they would be inclined to treat him with kindness and respect so that he would not want to run away. This law also provided a way out for a slave who was either grossly mistreated or simply could not live with the idea of being the property of another man or woman.
Slaves in Israel were usually domestic workers in the homes of the wealthy and were treated as family members. Those in agriculture apparently worked alongside hired men and women (as in the story of Ruth). Some people who were captured from neighboring nations were made slaves of the state or served in the maintenance of the temple complex (Num. 31:28-30,41; Josh. 9:23; 16:10; Jud. 1:28; 1 Ki. 9:20-21; Ezra 2:43-58; 8:20; Neh. 3:31; 7:46-60). But the biblical record indicates that they were treated well. They probably considered themselves fortunate to be in Israel instead of another country.
Israel's humane treatment of slaves can undoubtedly be traced back to God's reminders of their own slavery in Egypt. His laws providing protection for them and His legislation about runaway slaves indicated that slave ownership was not sacrosanct. The fact of the matter is that although God permitted and regulated slavery in Israel, He neither endorsed it nor made slave ownership an inviolable right.
Slavery was an integral part of the social, economic, and institutional life of the ancient Middle East. The Bible writers refer to it repeatedly as a fact of life. They neither endorsed nor condemned it. It was so intricately woven into the fabric of society that neither the patriarchs nor the nation of Israel could avoid being caught up in it. It was probably more humane than other alternatives people would have chosen at that time. Most of the people taken as slaves would have otherwise been slaughtered. Yet the Old Testament does not endorse it. On the contrary, it teaches principles which, had they been put into practice, would have led to its abolition.
Twospirits
All your long post does is make excuses and justifications for the god of the Bible allowing slavery! Obviously the Old Testament did not teach principles that could have lead to the abolition of slavery, because in the New Testament there is NOT ONE WORD spoken against slavery...instead what one finds is Jesus, Paul, and others admonishing slaves to obey their masters.
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
03-29-2012, 10:28 AM
Giving laws for the care and treatment of biblical "slaves" does not mean God condoned and endorsed slavery.
Yes it does. God said that a slave-owner could beat his slaves and if they did not die within a couple days, he would not be punished because the slave was his PROPERTY. There was no "care" shown for the slave in such a law! All the concern was for the slave-owner, to allow him to beat his slaves as he saw fit. Such a law does not come from a moral source.
Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
There is nothing more plain or obvious. The Bible is not any kind of a "moral guide." It promotes the primitive morality of primitive cultures. If God were the author, we would expect it to teach authentic morality. We wouldn't have to go about "fixing it" all the time.
And worse - slave holders in the southern states found strong support for their wicked practice in the Holy Bible. Just look at this conclusion of an article published in 1850 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2134-DeBow-s-Review-%281850%29-Argued-that-the-Bible-Supports-Slavery):
We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be wrong.
What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will.
These simple, direct, clear, and unambiguous words put to shame the long, convoluted, and false justifications of slavery written by apologists. If the Bible is to be any kind of moral guide, then it cannot require such laborious efforts to make it seem moral.
Many words are required to hide the truth.
The sign of truth is simplicity and clarity. Many words signal deception.
The Bible says that the wife and children of a Hebrew slave are the "property" of the slave-owner and that if the slave wants to remain with his family he must abandon his freedom forever. His only alternative is to abandon his family! Do you call that a moral law? Does it show any "care" for the slaves? Do you really believe that God Almighty set up a system where a man must choose between his freedom or his family? What kind of moral monster do you make God to be?
Twospirits
03-29-2012, 12:56 PM
Ram wrote,
Yes it does. God said that a slave-owner could beat his slaves and if they did not die within a couple days, he would not be punished because the slave was his PROPERTY. There was no "care" shown for the slave in such a law! All the concern was for the slave-owner, to allow him to beat his slaves as he saw fit. Such a law does not come from a moral source.
Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Where does God say he 'could beat his slave?' When he gave this law God said 'IF' this occurs--. Also if you had read the article (Herb Vander Lugt) he went on to say:
But I have come to the conclusion that there may have been other factors to consider. We must realize that the owner may have been providing food and lodging for the captured or purchased slave and had a right to expect some return on his investment. Then too, no matter how well the slaves were treated, some might have been rebellious and defiant. Forgetting that they were alive because they were taken as war captives instead of being executed, they might have blamed their master for their slave status. They might have shown their resentment by destroying property, abusing fellow slaves, or refusing to work. The master may have had no other way to bring his slave in line than to use physical punishment.
The Bible says that the wife and children of a Hebrew slave are the "property" of the slave-owner and that if the slave wants to remain with his family he must abandon his freedom forever. His only alternative is to abandon his family! Do you call that a moral law? Does it show any "care" for the slaves? Do you really believe that God Almighty set up a system where a man must choose between his freedom or his family? What kind of moral monster do you make God to be?
This is not quite true Richard, 1st, when he goes into slavery for 7 years, (Ex. 21:3) 'if he (the Hebrew slave) were married, then his wife shall go out with him' (be free). What you quote is IF in the time he is a slave (Ex. 21:4-6) 'and his master has given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself' if he wants to be free. HE made the choice of taking a wife while he was a slave to his master, so it becomes his responsibility to make the right choice. If he leaves, he is immoral not God.
(From the article Herb Vander Lugt)
Hebrew Slaves And Their Time Of Servitude. A Hebrew who became a slave (usually because he was unable to pay his debts) could not be kept in bondage for more than 6 years. If he married while he was a slave, he had to make a choice when his time for release arrived. He could choose to go free and leave his wife and children with his master. Or, if he loved his master and valued his family more than personal freedom, he could choose to remain with him for life (Ex. 21:2-6).
Because of man's sin God promised a redeemer Christ (Gen. 3:15), and God would not go back on His promise. With this in mind, what other alternative would you suggest God could have done other than instituting laws on slavery then in existence throughout the known world due to man's sin? In God's redemption plan he chose Israel and knew that the situation was such that the Israelites could not abolish the slave trade that permeated the known world of their day. So the only other alternative would be (other than instituting laws on slavery) destroying the known world of that day again, and in doing so breaking his promise to redeem mankind.
To be honest, it seems to me you and Rose have it where no matter which way God moves to save mankind and keep His promises and His Word, God is dammed if He does, and dammed if He don't!
God bless---Twospirits
Richard Amiel McGough
03-29-2012, 01:31 PM
Yes it does. God said that a slave-owner could beat his slaves and if they did not die within a couple days, he would not be punished because the slave was his PROPERTY. There was no "care" shown for the slave in such a law! All the concern was for the slave-owner, to allow him to beat his slaves as he saw fit. Such a law does not come from a moral source.
Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Where does God say he 'could beat his slave?' When he gave this law God said 'IF' this occurs--. Also if you had read the article (Herb Vander Lugt) he went on to say:
But I have come to the conclusion that there may have been other factors to consider. We must realize that the owner may have been providing food and lodging for the captured or purchased slave and had a right to expect some return on his investment. Then too, no matter how well the slaves were treated, some might have been rebellious and defiant. Forgetting that they were alive because they were taken as war captives instead of being executed, they might have blamed their master for their slave status. They might have shown their resentment by destroying property, abusing fellow slaves, or refusing to work. The master may have had no other way to bring his slave in line than to use physical punishment.
He says it by way of implication when he explicitly says that "he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
As for your justification of beating lazy or rebellious slaves - that makes my stomach turn. It is common knowledge that humans are especially cruel when they have master/slave control over others. Just look at what relatively modern CHRISTIANS did to the slaves in the south. They were infinitely more "civilized" than the primitive Israelites under Moses, so we can expect the institutional slavery of that time to have been correspondingly worse. There is no moral justification for this abomination in the Bible.
The Bible says that the wife and children of a Hebrew slave are the "property" of the slave-owner and that if the slave wants to remain with his family he must abandon his freedom forever. His only alternative is to abandon his family! Do you call that a moral law? Does it show any "care" for the slaves? Do you really believe that God Almighty set up a system where a man must choose between his freedom or his family? What kind of moral monster do you make God to be?
This is not quite true Richard, 1st, when he goes into slavery for 7 years, (Ex. 21:3) 'if he (the Hebrew slave) were married, then his wife shall go out with him' (be free). What you quote is IF in the time he is a slave (Ex. 21:4-6) 'and his master has given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself' if he wants to be free. HE made the choice of taking a wife while he was a slave to his master, so it becomes his responsibility to make the right choice. If he leaves, he is immoral not God.
(From the article Herb Vander Lugt)
Hebrew Slaves And Their Time Of Servitude. A Hebrew who became a slave (usually because he was unable to pay his debts) could not be kept in bondage for more than 6 years. If he married while he was a slave, he had to make a choice when his time for release arrived. He could choose to go free and leave his wife and children with his master. Or, if he loved his master and valued his family more than personal freedom, he could choose to remain with him for life (Ex. 21:2-6).
I grant one point - the slave should have had the foresight and restraint to not get married while a slave. But the law is still an abomination. There is no good reason to put people in such situations. Even if he was weak and lonely and accepted a wife from his master, he should not be punished by having to choose between perpetual slavery or abandoning his wife and children! The law is horribly immoral and plays off of human weakness and treats humans as property.
Because of man's sin God promised a redeemer Christ (Gen. 3:15), and God would not go back on His promise. With this in mind, what other alternative would you suggest God could have done other than instituting laws on slavery then in existence throughout the known world due to man's sin? In God's redemption plan he chose Israel and knew that the situation was such that the Israelites could not abolish the slave trade that permeated the known world of their day. So the only other alternative would be (other than instituting laws on slavery) destroying the known world of that day again, and in doing so breaking his promise to redeem mankind.
To be honest, it seems to me you and Rose have it where no matter which way God moves to save mankind and keep His promises and His Word, God is dammed if He does, and dammed if He don't!
God bless---Twospirits
This is so typical of Christian apologists. After lifting up God as the ALMIGHTY with infinite wisdom and power, they suddenly say that he had no better choice than to institute immoral laws. God had an infinite number of choices. He could have prohibited slavery just like he prohibited idolatry and all the other supposed "abominations" practiced "throughout the known world." But that's not what we see at all. The God of the OT looks just like any other God of that era. He commanded genocide and the capture of virgins for "wives." He had all the choices in the world. Why did he act as if he loved violence? If he was the true God, why did he impersonate a Bronze age tribal war god?
You assertion that Rose and I would disapprove "no matter which way God moves to save mankind" has no foundation in fact. The problem is that the actions attributed to God in the OT are morally abominable. They were not "advances" over the existing primitive morality. On the contrary, they exhibit the worst of primitive morality. Women were treated as property. Whole peoples were murdered and virgins taken. These are not moral advancements. Think about Judges 19-21. Why did God choose to kill every man, woman, and child - except 600 soldiers - of the tribe of Benjamin? And why then did he allow the remaining tribes to kill ever man, woman, and child - except 400 virgins - of the town of Jabesh-Gilead? And then kidnap another 200 virgins who were on their way to worship the Lord? It's all insane. There is no justification for such actions.
All the best,
Richard
[QUOTE=RAM;42619]Yes it does. God said that a slave-owner could beat his slaves and if they did not die within a couple days, he would not be punished because the slave was his PROPERTY. There was no "care" shown for the slave in such a law! All the concern was for the slave-owner, to allow him to beat his slaves as he saw fit. Such a law does not come from a moral source.[INDENT]Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
If I am a smart slave, I would have feign unconsciousness after the beating and got a day or two days of rest!:p Honestly, which person would want to endure such torture? I think the implication here is that you are not supposed to punish the slave too severely or you would incur loss of a day or two of unproductive days from the slave. But however if you over do the beatings and killed the slave, you will be punished.
The Bible says that the wife and children of a Hebrew slave are the "property" of the slave-owner and that if the slave wants to remain with his family he must abandon his freedom forever. His only alternative is to abandon his family! Do you call that a moral law? Does it show any "care" for the slaves? Do you really believe that God Almighty set up a system where a man must choose between his freedom or his family? What kind of moral monster do you make God to be?
I believe God is a fair God. Supposed you bought a worker for $200,000 and he is supposed to work for you for life but you decided on compassionate ground on a contracted 7 years. You are also kind enough to even got a wife for him and paid for him and his family every daily expenses including food, lodging, utilities, clothings, travels etc. Don't you want to get back your investment in the event that the worker decided to leave you before the contract ends? If this worker left and he couldn't pay back what was owe to you based on the contract, don't you think you have the right to withhold his family as a surety? His family will be liable to work for you to recover your loss when the worker left you. However, if the worker is capable of paying you back your investment before he left or return back several months/years later after earning enough income to pay back your investment, then you are obliged to return him back his wife and children which you have kept as surety. Is this a fair deal or a cruel deal? However, if the worker likes your employment and kind generous benefits that you gave him and continues to work for you even after the 7 years contract have ended, you are liable to provide him lifelong employment and provide for his wife and children as well for life. Is this a generous fair deal?
God is fair and wise. :pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
03-29-2012, 03:00 PM
I believe God is a fair God. Supposed you bought a worker for $200,000 and he is supposed to work for you for life but you decided on compassionate ground on a contracted 7 years. You are also kind enough to even got a wife for him and paid for him and his family every daily expenses including food, lodging, utilities, clothings, travels etc. Don't you want to get back your investment in the event that the worker decided to leave you before the contract ends? If this worker left and he couldn't pay back what was owe to you based on the contract, don't you think you have the right to withhold his family as a surety? His family will be liable to work for you to recover your loss when the worker left you. However, if the worker is capable of paying you back your investment before he left or return back several months/years later after earning enough income to pay back your investment, then you are obliged to return him back his wife and children which you have kept as surety. Is this a fair deal or a cruel deal? However, if the worker likes your employment and kind generous benefits that you gave him and continues to work for you even after the 7 years contract have ended, you are liable to provide him lifelong employment and provide for his wife and children as well for life. Is this a generous fair deal?
God is fair and wise. :pray:
There is nothing "fair and wise" about the institution of slavery. It is wicked to the core.
Hello Cheow :yo:
I think I need to educate you on the meaning of human rights. You seem to think that equality and human rights means men having breasts, or women having penises. Human rights means that all people are entitled to share in the fullness of life and all it has to offer...NOT to be told by men that they can't have an education, or they are the property of a man because of their gender or race. All people should be judged on their merits and ability to do whatever it is they wish...the same rights for all people.
Is this realistic? Have any country achieved such equality as you have mentioned?
The Bible is sorely lacking in human rights, especially for women...which points to my claim of its extreme male-bias.
The Bible may be lacking in human rights so is the the whole world and society at that time and it involved all males and females , some to the extreme. So my question is why blame on the Bible if societal norms and human civilization are the main culprit?
You have yet to answer my questions so that WE ALL have a better understanding of your terms of equality. As I said, equality cannot be based on male and female alone but on all aspects of life. What's the point of having male and female equality without achieving equality in all other essential areas?
Please answer my questions, Yes or No will do:
1. The gap between the rich and the poor is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
2. Everyone playing their parts in more or less equal ways to achieve a common goal is equal human right. Yes or No?
3. If men can do it so can women is equal human right. Yes or No?
4. If men have penis so can women; if women have breast so can men is equal human right. In other words, the physical differences in men and women is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
5. People living in the convenience of modern living while those living in ancient times without modern day conveniences is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
6. Human rights between men and wiomen is now much better compared to ancient times. Yes or No?
7. There were hardly any human rights in ancient times. Yes or No?
8. Men have more human rights than women in the ancient times. Yes or No?
9. Equal human rights mean everyone must be the same...same treatment, same healthcare, same standard of living, same laws, etc. Yes or No?
10. Animals should have human rights also. Yes or No?
God Blessed.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
03-29-2012, 04:40 PM
The Bible may be lacking in human rights so is the the whole world and society at that time and it involved all males and females , some to the extreme. So my question is why blame on the Bible if societal norms and human civilization are the main culprit?
We are not blaming the Bible. This has been explained 123,232,423 times! How is it possible that you cannot understand?
The fact that the Bible has the same errors as any other human book shows that it was not inspired by God. That is the point. Do you understand it now?
You have yet to answer my questions so that WE ALL have a better understanding of your terms of equality. As I said, equality cannot be based on male and female alone but on all aspects of life. What's the point of having male and female equality without achieving equality in all other essential areas?
The male bias of the Bible is just one example of the moral problems it contains which prove it was not inspired by God.
Please answer my questions, Yes or No will do:
1. The gap between the rich and the poor is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
2. Everyone playing their parts in more or less equal ways to achieve a common goal is equal human right. Yes or No?
3. If men can do it so can women is equal human right. Yes or No?
4. If men have penis so can women; if women have breast so can men is equal human right. In other words, the physical differences in men and women is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
5. People living in the convenience of modern living while those living in ancient times without modern day conveniences is unequal human rights. Yes or No?
6. Human rights between men and wiomen is now much better compared to ancient times. Yes or No?
7. There were hardly any human rights in ancient times. Yes or No?
8. Men have more human rights than women in the ancient times. Yes or No?
9. Equal human rights mean everyone must be the same...same treatment, same healthcare, same standard of living, same laws, etc. Yes or No?
10. Animals should have human rights also. Yes or No?
Those questions make no sense to me and they don't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand. Why don't you try to communicate in a way that can be understood?
David M
03-30-2012, 02:17 AM
There is nothing "fair and wise" about the institution of slavery. It is wicked to the core.
Hello Richard
Your statement is not entirely true. A servant is a slave and servants exist today who are quite happy to receive a home and food (and some spending money) in exchange for their services. Your statement is only true if you define what you mean, instead of giving an emotive soundbite. We are not dealing with institutions per se. All masters employing slaves/servants are not wicked. Your statement, merely serves to provoke anger by your limited and blinkered approach to these subjects.
From the indepth article provided by Twospirits and what others say, you are not acknowledging where they are correct. It is good you challenge some points as this enables to contributor to give a clearer and more indepth explanation, but then you simply come out with a statement like the one above. Slavery is a man-made problem. God has the foresight to deal with it. All possibilities have to be allowed for when it comes to the actions of men, and there will always be those who rebel against the law. God said the master of a slave would be punished "If". You assume this was common practice, when in actual fact, it might never have happened or very rarely in the Israelite society. In other societies, without God's laws, the situation would have been far worse, yet you are not condeming those societies. I know you want to condemn God from what you say. Please give one example or ten, where an Israelite master beat his servant to within an inch of losing his live.
As you know, Jesus summed up all the law into two simple commands, the second being; "to love thy neighbour as thyself". This is the principle God wants us all (ideally) to live by. Is this at the core or your motivation? Are reprobates your neighbour? Do you want reprobates to do to you as they do to themselves? God knows, His laws will be disobeyed, and so He makes provision for when they are. You and Rose say that God should have instructed the people to do this or that (in your opinion), but whatever God says, man (for the most part) will reject and disobey. You think you are wiser than God and want to tell God what he should have said or done without knowing the consequences of what you suggest. God is far wiser and knows the outcomes and that is what you fail to recognize.
I thank Twospirits for his long post, which has given me more insight into this subject of slaves and masters and the way the relationship has changed within cultures and throughout history. I see both sides of the arguments and as an observer (you will say I am biased), but I think Twospirits post and the research and analysis shows a far greater understanding than you and Rose, and you ought to learn something from it. I can see how your challenges to some points are contributing by way of testing some points and hereby you are acting as Satan. However, I get the impression you know best and though you might claim not to know everything, arrogance tends to show from your answers. I am learning from what everyone is contributing, but you never acknowledge that you are doing the same from some of the long explanations and discourses given. I have not had satisfactory answer to my questions such as; "what if the Israelites had asked the people living in the Promised Land to get out"? You cannot say that all the people had not heard how God was with the Israelites and that they could have avoided conflict. Rahab (the harlot) had heard. As I have said, your proposal, as to what God should have done, is absurd and shows a degree of naivity, if you think you know the outcome of the suggestions you make. You say that God should teach... and that is exactly what He is doing in His revealed word to us, but (at present) you do not appear to understand the lessons taught, and you are rejecting what you are being told, or you are just plain blind. There are non so blind as those who will not see (understand) and by your own words you have said that, anyone who does not want to know, no amount of evidence will change their mind. I fear you are already in this group of people, despite any assertions you make to the contrary. You are passionate about your views and interests to the exclusion of trying to understand, which when you do, would force you to go against what you are saying now.
It would be good to hear from individuals who are so not entrenched as we are in our points of view. I know I am, because I have reasoned these things out. I might not have an indepth knowledge of all things and I do not have a perfect understanding of all things, which is why, on the subject of slavery, I have a greater understanding after reading the post of Twospirits and the replies following.
Thanks for this opportunity to express my opinions openly.
David
We are not blaming the Bible. This has been explained 129,232,423 times! How is it possible that you cannot understand?
The fact is that you have made yourself clear that you are not blaming God 123.232,429 times. Why can't you end your posts by praising God or saying posirtive things about God 129,232,423 times!
The fact that the Bible has the same errors as any other human book shows that it was not inspired by God. That is the point. Do you understand it now?
So you are saying any books that has no error are inspired by God? I wonder what books contain no error...Aha, I know the stupid book on the Theory of Evolution! All books contain errors so they are all not inspired by God, that's very true!
The male bias of the Bible is just one example of the moral problems it contains which prove it was not inspired by God.
If male bias with its moral problems was not inspired by God, there are also female bias with moral problems in the Bible, is it then inspired by God?
Those questions make no sense to me and they don't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand. Why don't you try to communicate in a way that can be understood?
Why is it so difficult to answer Yes or No? These are related question regarding moral equality. What's the point of talking about male and female equality when there are more important things about equality to talk about. I tell you what, I will answer those questions myself since it is so difficult for you or Rose to answer and we can start out from there:
1. The gap between the rich and the poor is unequal human rights. Yes or No? YES
2. Everyone playing their parts in more or less equal ways to achieve a common goal is equal human right. Yes or No? YES
3. If men can do it so can women is equal human right. Yes or No? NO
4. If men have penis so can women; if women have breast so can men is equal human right. In other words, the physical differences in men and women is unequal human rights. Yes or No? NO
5. People living in the convenience of modern living while those living in ancient times without modern day conveniences is unequal human rights. Yes or No? YES
6. Human rights between men and wiomen is now much better compared to ancient times. Yes or No? YES
7. There were hardly any human rights in ancient times. Yes or No? NO
8. Men have more human rights than women in the ancient times. Yes or No? YES amd NO
9. Equal human rights mean everyone must be the same...same treatment, same healthcare, same standard of living, same laws, etc. Yes or No? YES and NO
10. Animals should have human rights also. Yes or No? YES and NO
Is slavery is so bad, ask yourself why would a slave given freedom decided to remain a slave for life? He must be out of his mind! He must have liked the job and the benefits in order for him to continue as a slave. Imagine someone employing you and paying every of your expenses for six solid years....food, lodging, utilities, clothings, training, education, travels, entertainments, protection, even wife and children. And at the end of the six year contract let you go for free. This is luxury man, luxury!
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
If the slave wanted to remain as a slave voluntarily after the contracted six years, he will have to remain a slave for life. I am not sure about the Jewish custom of publicly piercing his ear with an awl. It may be a ritual to signify that this person is a a special slave and is part of his family. The privileges is that he will work as a slave (i.e. without being paid unlike a servant) for life but is treated as part of the family with special privileges.
Many God Blessings to all. :pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
03-30-2012, 10:31 AM
There is nothing "fair and wise" about the institution of slavery. It is wicked to the core.
Hello Richard
Your statement is not entirely true. A servant is a slave and servants exist today who are quite happy to receive a home and food (and some spending money) in exchange for their services. Your statement is only true if you define what you mean, instead of giving an emotive soundbite. We are not dealing with institutions per se. All masters employing slaves/servants are not wicked. Your statement, merely serves to provoke anger by your limited and blinkered approach to these subjects.
Hello David,
It should have been clear from the context that I was talking about the institution of slavery that allows masters to treat people as property, as in the Biblical law:
Exodus 21:20 "And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
I maintain that such a law is fundamentally immoral.
From the indepth article provided by Twospirits and what others say, you are not acknowledging where they are correct. It is good you challenge some points as this enables to contributor to give a clearer and more indepth explanation, but then you simply come out with a statement like the one above. Slavery is a man-made problem. God has the foresight to deal with it. All possibilities have to be allowed for when it comes to the actions of men, and there will always be those who rebel against the law. God said the master of a slave would be punished "If". You assume this was common practice, when in actual fact, it might never have happened or very rarely in the Israelite society. In other societies, without God's laws, the situation would have been far worse, yet you are not condeming those societies. I know you want to condemn God from what you say. Please give one example or ten, where an Israelite master beat his servant to within an inch of losing his live.
There is no excuse for God making laws that treat humans as the property of other humans. You cannot blame it on humans. God made plenty of laws against human sins. Why did he accommodate - indeed promote - the wickedness of slavery? The answer seems obvious. The laws were not of God at all. They were laws written by slave-owners for slave-owners!
As you know, Jesus summed up all the law into two simple commands, the second being; "to love thy neighbour as thyself". This is the principle God wants us all (ideally) to live by. Is this at the core or your motivation? Are reprobates your neighbour? Do you want reprobates to do to you as they do to themselves? God knows, His laws will be disobeyed, and so He makes provision for when they are. You and Rose say that God should have instructed the people to do this or that (in your opinion), but whatever God says, man (for the most part) will reject and disobey. You think you are wiser than God and want to tell God what he should have said or done without knowing the consequences of what you suggest. God is far wiser and knows the outcomes and that is what you fail to recognize.
Yes, the law Jesus spoke was much more moral than the laws of the OT. But that only exacerbates the problem. God is supposed to be unchanging.
I do not think I am wiser than God. My point, which I have repeated many times, is that the Bible cannot be the "Word of God" because it contains immoral commandments and attributes moral abominations to God.
It has nothing to do with the fact that people will disobey. You don't write bad laws to accommodate human wickedness! Else God would not prohibit anything.
I thank Twospirits for his long post, which has given me more insight into this subject of slaves and masters and the way the relationship has changed within cultures and throughout history. I see both sides of the arguments and as an observer (you will say I am biased), but I think Twospirits post and the research and analysis shows a far greater understanding than you and Rose, and you ought to learn something from it. I can see how your challenges to some points are contributing by way of testing some points and hereby you are acting as Satan. However, I get the impression you know best and though you might claim not to know everything, arrogance tends to show from your answers. I am learning from what everyone is contributing, but you never acknowledge that you are doing the same from some of the long explanations and discourses given. I have not had satisfactory answer to my questions such as; "what if the Israelites had asked the people living in the Promised Land to get out"? You cannot say that all the people had not heard how God was with the Israelites and that they could have avoided conflict. Rahab (the harlot) had heard. As I have said, your proposal, as to what God should have done, is absurd and shows a degree of naivity, if you think you know the outcome of the suggestions you make. You say that God should teach... and that is exactly what He is doing in His revealed word to us, but (at present) you do not appear to understand the lessons taught, and you are rejecting what you are being told, or you are just plain blind. There are non so blind as those who will not see (understand) and by your own words you have said that, anyone who does not want to know, no amount of evidence will change their mind. I fear you are already in this group of people, despite any assertions you make to the contrary. You are passionate about your views and interests to the exclusion of trying to understand, which when you do, would force you to go against what you are saying now.
I get the impression you like Twospirits post not because it is logically compelling, but because it confirms your prejudice about the Bible. You say I am blind, but the truth is quite the opposite. As explained early, I have nothing to lose, no dogma to uphold, so I am free to examine all the facts. But you are bound - utterly trapped - in a very fragile dogma of Biblical perfection. A single fact contradicting your dogma would cause your entire belief structure to come crashing down. So you MUST - ABSOLUTELY MUST - deny any facts that contradict your dogma. This is blinding you. It is silly for you to call me blind. I easily admit any truth I see because I am not protecting any dogma. Even when I was a fundamentalist Christian, I knew that there were facts that made Biblical fundamentalism impossible. This didn't stop me from believing the Bible was "God's Book" - I was just careful NEVER to make the error of asserting that the Bible was the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." I held a much higher view of Scripture that allowed me to accept it as God gave it - warts and all. Who are we to tell God that his book must not contain any fallible human elements? If that's his will, so be it. And given that he made it abundantly clear (assuming that Bible is his book) that the Bible contains errors, contradictions, and other problems, no true believer has any choice but to accept it as he gave it.
Your assertion that I am arrogant is both rude and ironic. Have you not considered the degree of hubris required for you to deny all science to support your dogmas about the Bible? Now that's arrogance!
I do not simply "reject what I am being told." I evaluate what I am told and respond accordingly. If I have erred, you should show me the error rather than making such baseless assertions.
The article by Twospirits was long on words and short on meaning. It covered all sorts of extraneous topics in an effort to avoid dealing with what the Bible really states.
It would be good to hear from individuals who are so not entrenched as we are in our points of view. I know I am, because I have reasoned these things out. I might not have an indepth knowledge of all things and I do not have a perfect understanding of all things, which is why, on the subject of slavery, I have a greater understanding after reading the post of Twospirits and the replies following.
:lmbo:
That's so funny! I am not "entrenched" - I have no dogmas to uphold. YOU are the one "entrenched" in a false dogma about the Bible and so are forced to deny all facts that contradict your dogma. Talk about irony ...
Thanks for this opportunity to express my opinions openly.
David
You are most welcome. I very much appreciate the time you take to share.
All the best,
Richard
Twospirits
03-30-2012, 11:33 AM
For those interested, further in-sight concerning this discussion on 'slavery' seen in scripture. See full article here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html A must read for those interested!
"Slavery" is a very relative word and we have to be very careful in not auto-associating it with more 'vivid' New World (forced slavery) history in comparison to the OT.
"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]
In the Ancient Near East and the OT the dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).
New World slavery: slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders. In the ANE (Ancient Near East) (and especially the OT), the opposite was the case. This should be obvious from the MOTIVE aspect--these were choices by the impoverished (individuals) to enter this dependency state, in return for economic security and protection. Some slavery contracts actually emphasized this voluntary aspect!
Concerning war. --even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:
"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]
And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.
Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt (which generally DID conform to the "western" paradigm described above (forced slavery). She is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19).
The Covenant Community and its law was meant to demonstrate 'how it should be done' within ANE communities. The content of the Mosaic law was designed to show forth both the compassion of God (e.g. treatment of neighbor and the disadvantaged) and the holiness/purity of God (e.g. the sacrificial system and cleanness stipulations). One would therefore expect that intra-Hebrew dealings would reflect a much higher standard than the law codes of the surrounding nations (as indeed the historical record generally confirms).
'See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? " (Deut 4.5)
19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. (Ps 147.19)
Now, let's turn to the Exodus 21.7-11 passage, dealing with a father 'selling' his daughter.
The first thing to note is that commentators do not see this as a 'despicable' , 'mercenary' act on the part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by a dad in protection and provision for his daughter (generally thought to be under extreme duress):
"Lagas-Girsu legal texts show children being sold into slavery, and this led the texts' editor to posit a weak family bond. If, as seems likely, the parents were choosing life over death for their children, one does not need to doubt their devotion to the children." [OT:LIANE, 35]
· "While this legal right of parents was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one means of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new household for the poor offspring." [OT:FAI, 196]
· "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class."
· "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents recording legal arrangements of this kind have survived from Nuzi. The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no compensation for the purchase price." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
2. Secondly, commentators are quick to point out that this 'selling' isn’t real slavery--its very, very different from 'regular' slavery transactions. [This case is different than the debt-slave situation, in that (1) it is done by the father for a dependent daughter, rather than an independent self-selling female; (2) it is about marriage and childbearing, instead of simple domestic service labor, and is therefore exempt from the must-wait-six-years provision--indeed release would not have to wait nearly that long at all [the 'master' would know very soon if he was not pleased with the bride-to-be]; (3) has multiple exit conditions;* and (4) has additional protections and guarantees in it]:
· "Older views held that Mesopotamian marriage was basically a commercial arrangement in which the groom purchased the bride, and it is true that extant texts are interested in the economic relations that were being forged by the new union. But it is not helpful to see marriage as purchase because the bride's family too usually presented gifts to the groom's family; instead, marriage seems more a change in status for both parties, like adoption." [OT:LIANE, 52]
· "The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that [B]she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. … Such an interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slave-bride are given in sequence to the 'guiding principles' for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free. [WBC]
· "The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
· "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. …The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
Reverences to slavery in later Old Testament books.
The subsequent references to slavery, semi-slavery, and forced-labor situations all reflect (1) this non-western character of the arrangements; (2) Israelite tendency to abuse even the well-intentioned structures of Hebrew servanthood set up in the Law; and (3) a transitional framework that will carry over into the Greeco-Roman era.
This is the incident in which the people of the four towns in Canaan (Gibeon, Kephirah, Beeroth and Kiriath Jearim. ) deceived Joshua and the Israelites into signing a peace-treaty with them, even though Israel was NOT supposed to do so. In retaliation for this deception, the Gibeonites were put to 'forced labor' (See Joshua 9).
In this warning speech by Samuel to the straying nation, he points out that the ruling elite will end up placing forced-labor and conscription services on the nation. Since this is meant to be a deterrent to the nation, it makes sense that it was seen quite negatively. In other words, forced-labor was NOT an acceptable state of affairs for the populace. (I Sam 8.6ff).
The attempted enslavement of 200,000 Judeans! (2 Chrn 28.8-15). The prophet speaks for God and specifically condemns the practice.
One can see here that the ruling elite had begun to exploit and abuse the poor--just another example of how we tend to take acceptable structures and exploit them for selfish ends. No exception here. The fact that the prophets consistently rebuke these oppressive practices should indicate that God NEVER intended them for His people at all! (Amos 8.4ff)
The Fiasco of Jeremiah 34! --a story of hope and freedom, dashed by the greed of men.
The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. 9 Everyone was to free his Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Jew in bondage. 10 So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free. 11 But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again. 12 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 13 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, 14 `Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you six years, you must let him go free.' Your fathers, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me. 15 Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to his countrymen. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. 16 But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again. 17 "Therefore, this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom for your fellow countrymen. So I now proclaim `freedom' for you, declares the LORD -- `freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth. 18 The men who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces. 19 The leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests and all the people of the land who walked between the pieces of the calf, 20 I will hand over to their enemies who seek their lives. Their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth. (Jer 34)
This was the major point in the revival under Zedekiah (with the Babylonian army outside the door!), and illustrates both (1) God's intent (his laws) for freedom and (2) Israel's failure to obey this FROM THE START.
These sample passages from the OT should clearly indicate that God was NEVER in favor of slavery (of any kind), and even instituted Hebrew semi-slavery as a concessive means to help the poor. His careful regulation of the institution (e.g. "forced" freedom at 6 years) shows how concerned He was about abuses. And the abuses DID surface in the nation of Israel, as the above situations indicate.
Summary: In the OT we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned chattel (forced) slavery, and indeed, we have substantial bodies of data and argument to support the contrary--that God desired the freedom of all men and women within the covenant community (of Israel) ruled by Him.
Twospirits
These sample passages from the OT should clearly indicate that God was NEVER in favor of slavery (of any kind), and even instituted Hebrew semi-slavery as a concessive means to help the poor. His careful regulation of the institution (e.g. "forced" freedom at 6 years) shows how concerned He was about abuses. And the abuses DID surface in the nation of Israel, as the above situations indicate.
Summary: In the OT we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned chattel (forced) slavery, and indeed, we have substantial bodies of data and argument to support the contrary--that God desired the freedom of all men and women within the covenant community (of Israel) ruled by Him.
Twospirits
I think the verse below clearly shows that God not only condoned slavery, but laid out the laws concerning where the Hebrews should buy their slaves, and that the slaves who begat children were to be passed on as an inheritable possession which they would own forever!
Lev.25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever:but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Why try and make excuses for what God clearly approves of?
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
03-30-2012, 01:11 PM
These sample passages from the OT should clearly indicate that God was NEVER in favor of slavery (of any kind), and even instituted Hebrew semi-slavery as a concessive means to help the poor. His careful regulation of the institution (e.g. "forced" freedom at 6 years) shows how concerned He was about abuses. And the abuses DID surface in the nation of Israel, as the above situations indicate.
Summary: In the OT we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned chattel (forced) slavery, and indeed, we have substantial bodies of data and argument to support the contrary--that God desired the freedom of all men and women within the covenant community (of Israel) ruled by Him.
Twospirits
I think the verse below clearly shows that God not only condoned slavery, but laid out the laws concerning where the Hebrews should buy their slaves, and that the slaves who begat children were to be passed on as an inheritable possession which they would own forever!
Lev.25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever:but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Why try and make excuses for what God clearly approves of?
Rose
I am totally confused. The assertion that "we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned chattel (forced) slavery" directly contradicts the plain and explicit Biblical teaching that allowed the Hebrews to FORCEFULLY TAKE SLAVES IN WAR!!!!!
Twospirits - have I missed something? How is it that you don't see a direct contradiction between your words and those of the Bible?
Twospirits
03-30-2012, 02:06 PM
I am totally confused. The assertion that "we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned chattel (forced) slavery" directly contradicts the plain and explicit Biblical teaching that allowed the Hebrews to FORCEFULLY TAKE SLAVES IN WAR!!!!!
Twospirits - have I missed something? How is it that you don't see a direct contradiction between your words and those of the Bible?
These are not my words, but are from the article I posted in part: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
And the very reason why I expressed that for those who are interested in gaining further in-sight and understanding of "slavery" seen in the OT that the source I gave was a "must read." It gives a thorough study on the subject of ancient slavery in existence in the nations in comparison to God's Biblical laws of "slavery" set down for Israel for-knowing under the circumstances that Israel could not abolish slavery in the known world at the time. The source then compares it to New World slavery. In reading you would then have a much better understanding of the "definition" of the word slavery then as to how we view it now. BTW the word "chattel" slavery means "forced" (chattel), ie. forced slavery. This was NOT the type of "slavery" instituted in God's law.
God bless---Twospirits
ClockNumerology
03-30-2012, 07:20 PM
There are three undeniable facts that the Bible teaches, starting in the Old Testament and continuing on into the New Testament, with the tacit approval of Jesus by the absence of his condemnation of these teachings.
Women are considered the property of men.
Women are to be in subjection to men.
Owning slaves is promoted in the Old and condoned in the New.
Rose
1 Corinthians 7:4
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
I apologise if this verse was already brought up.
Your Friend,
Chris
These are not my words, but are from the article I posted in part: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
And the very reason why I expressed that for those who are interested in gaining further in-sight and understanding of "slavery" seen in the OT that the source I gave was a "must read." It gives a thorough study on the subject of ancient slavery in existence in the nations in comparison to God's Biblical laws of "slavery" set down for Israel for-knowing under the circumstances that Israel could not abolish slavery in the known world at the time. The source then compares it to New World slavery. In reading you would then have a much better understanding of the "definition" of the word slavery then as to how we view it now. BTW the word "chattel" slavery means "forced" (chattel), ie. forced slavery. This was NOT the type of "slavery" instituted in God's law.
God bless---Twospirits
I see no reason why a God who is purported to have created the universe and commanded that the Hebrews worship only him, could not have also set a precedent with his people to not own other human beings. Why does it matter if every other country in the world practiced slavery, the Hebrew god Yahweh was known for breaking away from the norm. The problem with a deity allowing his stamp of approval upon something as wicked as slavery, is that it remains written forever in the sacred texts of that religion, and cannot be changed.
I don't know what you are talking about when you say that "forced slavery" wasn't instituted in God's law. :confused: Look at the verses below...it explicitly says that the children of the slaves whom the Hebrews bought shall remain as their possessions and bondmen forever, that sure sounds like "chattle" to me!
Lev.25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Rose
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=42541#post42541)
There are three undeniable facts that the Bible teaches, starting in the Old Testament and continuing on into the New Testament, with the tacit approval of Jesus by the absence of his condemnation of these teachings.
Women are considered the property of men.
Women are to be in subjection to men.
Owning slaves is promoted in the Old and condoned in the New.
Rose
1 Corinthians 7:4
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
I apologise if this verse was already brought up.
Your Friend,
Chris
Hi Chris :yo:
If you read 1 Corinthians 7 carefully you will see that it is referring to sexual relations between married couples. Also, if you notice Paul begins in verse 1 by saying it is best if a man doesn't touch a woman, but if he can't restrain himself from sex then he needs to marry the woman...so, once again we can clearly see how women were viewed, even by someone of the stature of the apostle Paul.
1Cor.7:1-4 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
All the best to you my friend,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
03-30-2012, 09:41 PM
Hi Chris :yo:
If you read 1 Corinthians 7 carefully you will see that it is referring to sexual relations between married couples. Also, if you notice Paul begins in verse 1 by saying it is best if a man doesn't touch a woman, but if he can't restrain himself from sex then he needs to marry the woman...so, once again we can clearly see how women were viewed, even by someone of the stature of the apostle Paul.
1Cor.7:1-4 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
All the best to you my friend,
Rose
What's up with the idea that it is "good" NOT to touch a woman? Personally, I think it is one of the most wonderful, comforting, and obviously "divine" aspects of creation. And besides, why was Eve created in the first place? Was Paul sexually repressed? Does the Bible teach an unhealthy attitude towards normal healthy sexual relations between men and women? Why did God create us as sexual creatures if it is "not good" fro a man to touch a woman? What's going on with Paul? His teachings really disturb me.
David M
03-31-2012, 01:03 AM
Good morning David, :yo:
What does asking the Israelite's politely to leave the land have to do with my point? God didn't ask the Hebrews if they wanted to slaughter all the people, take their land, and show them no mercy...he COMMANDED THEM TO! Yahweh seemed to have no problem telling the Hebrews to have no other gods and worship him only under threat of death. If Yahweh wants something done he seems to have no problem telling people to "do it or die!"
I think maybe you are the one who needs to "get real"
Rose
Rose
Please answer my question; Do you think that if the Israelites had asked the people to vacate the Promised Land they would have done so? We can then proceed.
If your answer is "no", what should God have done? You and Richard are not answering any of my questions and thereby I can only conclude you are condoning idolatry and its evil acts and you see nothing wrong with it. How are you going to stop people committing idolatry and child sacrfices? What is your soluiton to the problem? Please answer these questions so we can see how wise you are.
David
Twospirits
03-31-2012, 07:02 AM
Rose wrote,
I don't know what you are talking about when you say that "forced slavery" wasn't instituted in God's law. Look at the verses below...it explicitly says that the children of the slaves whom the Hebrews bought shall remain as their possessions and bondmen forever, that sure sounds like "chattle" to me!
Lev.25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
"War is only mentioned as a source of slavery for public institutions. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:
"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]
And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.
They were not 'slaves' in the way we view 'slavery,' but living under Israel's law 'they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works. They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis.' This is how they were 'bought' (Lev. 25:44). God's law of slavery equally applied to those 'acquired' (heathen) outside of Israel. They were considered Israel's "inheritance," they were considered "countrymen of Israel. Much like when an immigrant becomes a citizen of the U.S., the laws apply to one and all.
God bless---Twospirits
I think the verse below clearly shows that God not only condoned slavery, but laid out the laws concerning where the Hebrews should buy their slaves, and that the slaves who begat children were to be passed on as an inheritable possession which they would own forever!
Lev.25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever:but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Why try and make excuses for what God clearly approves of?
Rose
The issue is why buy them?...might as well forced them to be slaves for free! That would be even more cruel! The passage seems to show that slavery was an acceptable trade and occupation then and was voluntary as it was not forced. And they were not supposed to rule over them. Obviously, merciful God was trying to assimilate them into the Jewish race and thus eventually their descendants become Gods people.
God Mercy is beyond understanding.:pray:
[QUOTE]
If I am a smart slave, I would have feign unconsciousness after the beating and got a day or two days of rest!:p Honestly, which person would want to endure such torture? I think the implication here is that you are not supposed to punish the slave too severely or you would incur loss of a day or two of unproductive days from the slave. But however if you over do the beatings and killed the slave, you will be punished.
I believe God is a fair God. Supposed you bought a worker for $200,000 and he is supposed to work for you for life but you decided on compassionate ground on a contracted 7 years. You are also kind enough to even got a wife for him and paid for him and his family every daily expenses including food, lodging, utilities, clothings, travels etc. Don't you want to get back your investment in the event that the worker decided to leave you before the contract ends? If this worker left and he couldn't pay back what was owe to you based on the contract, don't you think you have the right to withhold his family as a surety? His family will be liable to work for you to recover your loss when the worker left you. However, if the worker is capable of paying you back your investment before he left or return back several months/years later after earning enough income to pay back your investment, then you are obliged to return him back his wife and children which you have kept as surety. Is this a fair deal or a cruel deal? However, if the worker likes your employment and kind generous benefits that you gave him and continues to work for you even after the 7 years contract have ended, you are liable to provide him lifelong employment and provide for his wife and children as well for life. Is this a generous fair deal?
God is fair and wise. :pray:
Supposed you have a bad son who committed a heinous crime that would have caused him to be imprisoned for 10 years. But due to your love for this bad son, you decided to show mercy on him, you decided not report the crime. As a compromise, you negotiated with him and hoping he will repent and correct his evil ways, you told your son that he will have to work with you and follow your instructions for 6 years and after the 6 years is up, you will forget about the matter and he can go and work on his own. The contract includes, correcting his evil ways including punishing him for any wrongdoings. Your son accepted the contract as it is better than to suffer in prison. During the 6 years contract, you managed to get a wife for your son and he got married and have children. However, after the 6 years contract is over, your son will have to decide to continue to stay with you or not. If he finds your treatment acceptable and realized that what you have done for him during the past 6 years is good and if he loves his wife and children, he will have to stay for life with the family so that he can continue to be taught and correct his evil ways. However, if he still felt unhappy or dissatisfied with your kind treatment during the 6 years of contract and have not much feelings towards his family, he may leave for good and live a life of his own as he is considered incorrigible of his wrongdoings. He cannot take his children and wife with him as they will only have to suffer under him and be influenced by his evil ways. Now, the question, is the father kind and merciful and did the right thing to his incorrigible son, his daughter in law and grand-children? Was God kind to the slave who will eventually be accepted into his master family if he repented after the 6 years were over and be assimilated into God's people?
May God show mercy on us.:pray:
Twospirits
03-31-2012, 09:22 AM
To one and all, it would really help if you studied the link I gave on slavery in the OT.
In short, here is the type of 'slavery' God's Law instituted for Israel seen in the OT: Slavery was to be voluntary for survival. Those who could not survive independently (make a livelihood for themselves) 'voluntarily' sold themselves into 'slavery' (work) to an 'owner' in order to receive in return food, shelter, clothing, etc.
Much like today when an individual 'voluntarily' looks for work (an owner-company) if he cannot make a livelihood for himself (as in self-employment). The only recourse is to 'voluntarily' sell ourselves into 'slavery' to an 'owner' (company) in order to receive from the owner (company) provision (money) for food, shelter, clothing, etc. This is the 'slave law' God instituted for Israel in the OT. Study the link source I posted and you will see, to put it simply, that what God instituted is what we for the most part do today in order to receive provision for our survival, and it is totally 'voluntary' on our part.
'In the Ancient Near East and the OT the dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).' (They were not 'slaves' in the way we view 'slavery,' but living under Israel's law 'they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works. They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis.').
God bless---Twospirits
Rose
Please answer my question; Do you think that if the Israelites had asked the people to vacate the Promised Land they would have done so? We can then proceed.
If your answer is "no", what should God have done? You and Richard are not answering any of my questions and thereby I can only conclude you are condoning idolatry and its evil acts and you see nothing wrong with it. How are you going to stop people committing idolatry and child sacrfices? What is your soluiton to the problem? Please answer these questions so we can see how wise you are.
David
Good morning David, :yo:
I already answered your question in post #17
Good morning David, :yo:
What does asking the Israelite's politely to leave the land have to do with my point? God didn't ask the Hebrews if they wanted to slaughter all the people, take their land, and show them no mercy...he COMMANDED THEM TO! Yahweh seemed to have no problem telling the Hebrews to have no other gods and worship him only under threat of death. If Yahweh wants something done he seems to have no problem telling people to "do it or die!"
I think maybe you are the one who needs to "get real"
Rose
As I answered before, it has nothing to do with the Hebrew's asking...remember, Yahweh is the one in charge here and he doesn't ask, he commands!
I really don't think the solution to ending child sacrifices is to go in and slaughter all the babies and children. :eek: Do you??
Violence begets violence, it is not a solution. According to the Bible even wiping out all the people on the planet except one righteous man and his family didn't solve any problems, or the complete destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah didn't solve the problem. People with primitive mindsets think that violence solves problems (that also applies to people today)...it doesn't! It never has and it never will.
All the best,
Rose
Good morning David, :yo:
I already answered your question in post #17
As I answered before, it has nothing to do with the Hebrew's asking...remember, Yahweh is the one in charge here and he doesn't ask, he commands!
I really don't think the solution to ending child sacrifices is to go in and slaughter all the babies and children. :eek: Do you??
Violence begets violence, it is not a solution. According to the Bible even wiping out all the people on the planet except one righteous man and his family didn't solve any problems, or the complete destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah didn't solve the problem. People with primitive mindsets think that violence solves problems (that also applies to people today)...it doesn't! It never has and it never will.
All the best,
Rose
Neither has non-violence solved any problem! Leaders can peace talk, negotiates, sign treatise and in the end still goes to wars....WW1, WW2. Vietnam war, Arab Israeli wars, Arab Spring, Iraqi war, Afghan war etc. Rell me how many wars were avoided because people sit down and talk? I am not against peace talks but many are just waste of time. Wars will never end as long as there are evil people on earth.
God Blessed Righteous people.:pray:
To one and all, it would really help if you studied the link I gave on slavery in the OT.
In short, here is the type of 'slavery' God's Law instituted for Israel seen in the OT: Slavery was to be voluntary for survival. Those who could not survive independently (make a livelihood for themselves) 'voluntarily' sold themselves into 'slavery' (work) to an 'owner' in order to receive in return food, shelter, clothing, etc.
Much like today when an individual 'voluntarily' looks for work (an owner-company) if he cannot make a livelihood for himself (as in self-employment). The only recourse is to 'voluntarily' sell ourselves into 'slavery' to an 'owner' (company) in order to receive from the owner (company) provision (money) for food, shelter, clothing, etc. This is the 'slave law' God instituted for Israel in the OT. Study the link source I posted and you will see, to put it simply, that what God instituted is what we for the most part do today in order to receive provision for our survival, and it is totally 'voluntary' on our part.
'In the Ancient Near East and the OT the dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).' (They were not 'slaves' in the way we view 'slavery,' but living under Israel's law 'they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works. They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis.').
God bless---Twospirits
Hi Twospirits :yo:
I have read the link and it has nothing to do with the point Richard and I are making. The point is that:
1. God ALLOWED, and APPROVED of the forced ownership of other people "slavery" in the Bible.
2. God gave decrees forbidding the coveting of a neighbors property (10th Commandment), but allowed the Hebrews to OWN their neighbor! :lol:
3. Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments is ownership of other people "slavery" condemned, or forbidden.
As I have said numerous times before, Yahweh imposed all kinds of moral decrees upon the Hebrews, forbidding them to partake in practices that were common in other societies at the time, therefore he should have no problem forbidding ownership of people if it was something he deemed wrong.
Rose
Neither has non-violence solved any problem! Leaders can peace talk, negotiates, sign treatise and in the end still goes to wars....WW1, WW2. Vietnam war, Arab Israeli wars, Arab Spring, Iraqi war, Afghan war etc. Rell me how many wars were avoided because people sit down and talk? I am not against peace talks but many are just waste of time. Wars will never end as long as there are evil people on earth.
God Blessed Righteous people.:pray:
Well, tell me Cheow, how many problems did Yahweh solve with violence? NONE
The issue is why buy them?...might as well forced them to be slaves for free! That would be even more cruel! The passage seems to show that slavery was an acceptable trade and occupation then and was voluntary as it was not forced. And they were not supposed to rule over them. Obviously, merciful God was trying to assimilate them into the Jewish race and thus eventually their descendants become Gods people.
God Mercy is beyond understanding.:pray:
The reason slaves were bought is because other people already owned them!
If slavery was such an acceptable trade and occupation as you say, then why did Yahweh come down so hard on the Egyptians that enslaved the Hebrew people? Over, and over again throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh keeps reminding the Hebrews that he was the one who brought them out of BONDAGE "forced slavery"!
Rose
Twospirits
03-31-2012, 01:43 PM
Hi Twospirits :yo:
I have read the link and it has nothing to do with the point Richard and I are making. The point is that:
1. God ALLOWED, and APPROVED of the forced ownership of other people "slavery" in the Bible.
2. God gave decrees forbidding the coveting of a neighbors property (10th Commandment), but allowed the Hebrews to OWN their neighbor! :lol:
3. Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments is ownership of other people "slavery" condemned, or forbidden.
As I have said numerous times before, Yahweh imposed all kinds of moral decrees upon the Hebrews, forbidding them to partake in practices that were common in other societies at the time, therefore he should have no problem forbidding ownership of people if it was something he deemed wrong.
Rose
Number 1. If you had read the article, in it it explained that the term "slavery" is not as we view it. God instituted (approved and allowed) with guidelines for the survival of his people the voluntary selling of oneself to an owner/master (an employer) for food, shelter, etc. In return owner gets labor and other benefits from "slave."
OT Biblical language:
Slave (slavery)-servant
Owner-master
Buy-selling oneself (to work) for food, shelter, etc.
In return owner/master gets labor and other benefits from "slave."
Comparison for today:
Slave-servant=worker-employee
Owner-master=company-employer
Buy-Selling oneself to receive compensation (money) for food, shelter, etc.
In return owner/master gets labor and other benefits from employee
Number 2. They were not considered "property owned" by the owner/master seen in God's Law on "slavery," for they were free and it was voluntary, not "forced slavery," so this does not come under the 10th commandment as you seem to think.
Number 3. There are many passages in the OT that God condemns forbidding ownership/slavery, here are a few:
Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death.
"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. " (Ex 21.16)
If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deut 24.7; cf. I Tim 1.10). Is this not condemning and forbidding slavery?
The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the person himself initiating the transaction--it is ALWAYS couched in the terms of 'selling oneself':
"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you..." (Lev 25.39)
"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan... (Lev 25.47)
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. (Deut 15.12)
Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.43)
..but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Lev 25.46)
53 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)
Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do. (Deut 15.18)
Although Hebrew servants are mis-called 'property' in one verse (Ex 21.21), Israel's notion of 'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only--NOT 'ownership of a disposable good'.
Both the land and Hebrew servants belonged to God--always!
"`The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. (Lev 25.23)
"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. (Lev 25.39) Is this not condemning and forbidding slavery?
As a 'managed, but not owned' human resource, servants were NOT thereby rendered 'disposable, non-human goods'. They were still legal agents in the culture and their masters were legally accountable for how they were treated.
The Fiasco of Jeremiah 34!
The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. 9 Everyone was to free his Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Jew in bondage. 10 So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free. 11 But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again. 12 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 13 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, 14 `Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you six years, you must let him go free.' Your fathers, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me. 15 Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to his countrymen. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. 16 But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again. 17 "Therefore, this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom for your fellow countrymen. So I now proclaim `freedom' for you, declares the LORD -- `freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth.' Is this not condemning and forbidding slavery?
'But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God' (Lev. 19:34). Is this not condemning and forbidding slavery?
God's response is quite clear in the context of these passages as well as in many others, He was against slavery and abhorred it and judged them and other nations for it in time. The OT clearly shows that we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned and promoted forced slavery.
God bless---Twospirits
Richard Amiel McGough
03-31-2012, 01:53 PM
Number 1. If you had read the article, in it it explained that the term "slavery" is not as we view it. God instituted (approved and allowed) with guidelines for the survival of his people the voluntary selling of oneself to an owner/master (an employer) for food, shelter, etc. In return owner gets labor and other benefits from "slave."
Hi Henry,
I read the article but cannot agree with your assertion that the slavery in the Bible was entirely different than what we mean by slavery. For example, a leading scholar in the history of slavery, Catherine Hezser, who wrote a comprehensive analysis called "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" states that most slaves owned in Biblical times were captured in war. This directly contradicts your central assertion that it was not "forced" slavery. They were forcefully captured and forced into slavery for life and handed down as property to be inherited.
Given that you have repeatedly appealed to that article, I will respond to it in detail (hopefully this afternoon).
All the best,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
03-31-2012, 03:25 PM
For those interested, further in-sight concerning this discussion on 'slavery' seen in scripture. See full article here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html A must read for those interested!
Hi Henry,
I will respond to the comments you posted. Are they your own comments? They are different than what is written in the article you linked.
"Slavery" is a very relative word and we have to be very careful in not auto-associating it with more 'vivid' New World (forced slavery) history in comparison to the OT.
"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]
It is true that the word "slave" has a broad range of meanings in the Bible. But that is not relevant to the issues at hand because we are focusing specifically on the laws relating to holding people as property against their will - "forced slavery." We are not talking about "servants" of kings or relations that are analogous to employers and employees. Your point would only be relevant if I falsely asserted that one of the Biblical laws was a law of forced slavery when in fact it was one of those other kinds of relationship.
In the Ancient Near East and the OT the dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).
Where did you get your statistics? Even if accurate, they are not relevant because we are not talking about Hebrew slaves who were treated less harshly than non-Hebrew slaves. The real problem is the law concerning non-Hebrew slaves, and the leading scholar Catherine Hezser asserts on page 382 of her "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" that "the main source of non-Jewish slaves were prisoners of war." That's forced slavery, and that's the whole point of our discussion.
New World slavery: slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders. In the ANE (Ancient Near East) (and especially the OT), the opposite was the case. This should be obvious from the MOTIVE aspect--these were choices by the impoverished (individuals) to enter this dependency state, in return for economic security and protection. Some slavery contracts actually emphasized this voluntary aspect!
What is your source for such assertions? The leading scholar plainly states that the main source of non-Jewish slaves were prisoners of war. That's "involuntary." The issue of "voluntary" slavery, while problematic in itself, is a diversion from the real moral problem of God endorsing forced slavery. We can deal with it later if you want, but I don't see the point since it's relatively irrelevant compared to the involuntary slavery that God instituted in the Bible.
Concerning war. --even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:
"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]
Your assertion about the meaning of "mas" (Strong's 4522) directly contradicts both the meaning of that word and the plain text of Scripture. First, the verse you cite says that they will "serve" (abad!) the Israelites:
Deuteronomy 20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries (mas) unto thee, and they shall serve (abad) thee.
Second, the definition of "mas" is "forced servitude" -
Strong's 4522 mas Meaning: 1) gang or body of forced labourers, task-workers, labour band or gang, forced service, task-work, serfdom, tributary, tribute, levy, taskmasters, discomfited 1a) labour-band, labour-gang, slave gang 1b) gang-overseers 1c) forced service, serfdom, tribute, enforced payment
But all this is irrelevant, because we are not talking about whole cities that were forced to serve Israel. We are talking about the individuals who were sold against their will or captured in war and forced to be slaves, and who were subject to the Biblical laws governing non-Jewish slaves who could be owned as property forever.
And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.
I don't see the relevance of your comment. The word translated as "acquisition" is Strong's 7069 qanah which is variously translated as buy, get, purchased, buyer, possessor, possessed. Slaves could be "acquired" through any means, whether purchased or captured in war.
Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt (which generally DID conform to the "western" paradigm described above (forced slavery). She is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19).
Point granted, but it actually exacerbates the problem because God set up different rules for the treatment of Hebrew over non-Hebrew slaves:
Leviticus 25:39 And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave (avoda aved).
The non-Hebrew slaves were "treated as slaves" - they could be captured in war, possessed forever against their will, handed down as chattel to future generations, beaten to the point where the were bedridded for two days without any punishment against the abusive slave-owner and without any hope of justice for the abuse they received.
The Covenant Community and its law was meant to demonstrate 'how it should be done' within ANE communities. The content of the Mosaic law was designed to show forth both the compassion of God (e.g. treatment of neighbor and the disadvantaged) and the holiness/purity of God (e.g. the sacrificial system and cleanness stipulations). One would therefore expect that intra-Hebrew dealings would reflect a much higher standard than the law codes of the surrounding nations (as indeed the historical record generally confirms).
Mere assertions. You have not presented any historical evidence to support your claims.
Now, let's turn to the Exodus 21.7-11 passage, dealing with a father 'selling' his daughter.
The first thing to note is that commentators do not see this as a 'despicable' , 'mercenary' act on the part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by a dad in protection and provision for his daughter (generally thought to be under extreme duress):
· "While this legal right of parents was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one means of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new household for the poor offspring." [OT:FAI, 196]
Yes, it may have been a life saving measure in a desperately primitive socieity - but that does not mean it was a good choice for how to set up a society! As your quote states, it was "more than likely to subject to abuse" which means it was NOT a "wise" law and certainly not someting worthy of the true God who could have simply set up a just social system that used some of the vast wealth given to the Levites to support the poor. But I guess that would have been just a little to "progressive" for the Creator, eh? Don't want to stretch him beyond his limits.
It's quite telling that sinful humans, in an age when we are rejecting dogmatic religion, surpass God himself in the care for the poor. The worst "secular humanists" don't go around suggesting that we establish laws where fathers protect their daughters by selling them into slavery (or whatever you prefer to call it).
· "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class."
That introduces another problem - the eternal Law of the Absolute God appears to be just fine with "concubines"! How could anyone think that this is the law given by the God Christians claim to worship? His morals are nothing like what we see coming out from Focus on the Family!
2. Secondly, commentators are quick to point out that this 'selling' isn’t real slavery--its very, very different from 'regular' slavery transactions. [This case is different than the debt-slave situation, in that (1) it is done by the father for a dependent daughter, rather than an independent self-selling female; (2) it is about marriage and childbearing, instead of simple domestic service labor, and is therefore exempt from the must-wait-six-years provision--indeed release would not have to wait nearly that long at all [the 'master' would know very soon if he was not pleased with the bride-to-be]; (3) has multiple exit conditions;* and (4) has additional protections and guarantees in it]:
And that's why your defense of "this kind of slavery" isn't particularly relevant at this point of our conversation. For all it's problems, it pales in comparison with the forced slavery that God endorses in the Bible.
· "Older views held that Mesopotamian marriage was basically a commercial arrangement in which the groom purchased the bride, and it is true that extant texts are interested in the economic relations that were being forged by the new union. But it is not helpful to see marriage as purchase because the bride's family too usually presented gifts to the groom's family; instead, marriage seems more a change in status for both parties, like adoption." [OT:LIANE, 52]
This brings up yet another huge problem with the Bible - its male bias, and the fact that it treats women like property. Now you can say that God was just accomodating the backwards and primitive cultures of the time, but I don't see how that can help elevate God from himself appearing primitive. The Chalice and the Blade discusses egalitarian societies that existed at that that time of history, so it was not an "impossible" thing for God to think up and implement if he only wanted to. And that's what makes all this apogetic effort so ironic - it basically denies that God was sufficiently intelligent or powerful to come up with a better solution!
Reverences to slavery in later Old Testament books.
The subsequent references to slavery, semi-slavery, and forced-labor situations all reflect (1) this non-western character of the arrangements; (2) Israelite tendency to abuse even the well-intentioned structures of Hebrew servanthood set up in the Law; and (3) a transitional framework that will carry over into the Greeco-Roman era.
This is the incident in which the people of the four towns in Canaan (Gibeon, Kephirah, Beeroth and Kiriath Jearim. ) deceived Joshua and the Israelites into signing a peace-treaty with them, even though Israel was NOT supposed to do so. In retaliation for this deception, the Gibeonites were put to 'forced labor' (See Joshua 9).
Again, this is not relevant. We are not talking about relations between cities or nations. We are talking about individuals held as property and forced to be slaves.
It is this constant misdirection that makes these conversations so difficult. You write very long posts covering every variety of tangents in what appears to be an attempt to bury the problem with many words.
The Fiasco of Jeremiah 34! --a story of hope and freedom, dashed by the greed of men.
The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. 9 Everyone was to free his Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Jew in bondage. 10 So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free. 11 But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again. 12 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 13 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, 14 `Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you six years, you must let him go free.' Your fathers, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me. 15 Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to his countrymen. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. 16 But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again. 17 "Therefore, this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom for your fellow countrymen. So I now proclaim `freedom' for you, declares the LORD -- `freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth. 18 The men who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces. 19 The leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests and all the people of the land who walked between the pieces of the calf, 20 I will hand over to their enemies who seek their lives. Their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth. (Jer 34)
This was the major point in the revival under Zedekiah (with the Babylonian army outside the door!), and illustrates both (1) God's intent (his laws) for freedom and (2) Israel's failure to obey this FROM THE START.
That is a false conclusion. It was God who instituted the laws concerning Hebrew slaves. You can't then say he did it against his will! And it's not relevant to the question at hand, because Jeremiah 34 speaks only of Hebrew slaves which were not kept as perpetual slaves and were treated much better than non-Hebrew slaves.
These sample passages from the OT should clearly indicate that God was [B]NEVER in favor of slavery (of any kind), and even instituted Hebrew semi-slavery as a concessive means to help the poor. His careful regulation of the institution (e.g. "forced" freedom at 6 years) shows how concerned He was about abuses. And the abuses DID surface in the nation of Israel, as the above situations indicate.
That is an OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE CONCLUSION not supported in any way by the arguments you presented.
This is why your long posts seem to be an exercise in diversion. You write about everything under the sun except the actual problem of forced slaves held in perpetual servitude, and then you simply INVENT a completely unsupported conclusion! Wow ...
Summary: In the OT we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned chattel (forced) slavery, and indeed, we have substantial bodies of data and argument to support the contrary--that God desired the freedom of all men and women within the covenant community (of Israel) ruled by Him.
Twospirits
Again, you did not write a single word that directly supports your conclusion! :doh:
God explicitly stated that forced slaves could be kept as property forever and you did not touch this fact anywhere in your ridiculously bloated post. (Sorry for the strong words, but please - get real! It looks like you did everything in your power to avoid the very issues that you were supposed to be refuting!)
All the best,
Richard
Number 1. If you had read the article, in it it explained that the term "slavery" is not as we view it. God instituted (approved and allowed) with guidelines for the survival of his people the voluntary selling of oneself to an owner/master (an employer) for food, shelter, etc. In return owner gets labor and other benefits from "slave."
OT Biblical language:
Slave (slavery)-servant
Owner-master
Buy-selling oneself (to work) for food, shelter, etc.
In return owner/master gets labor and other benefits from "slave."
Comparison for today:
Slave-servant=worker-employee
Owner-master=company-employer
Buy-Selling oneself to receive compensation (money) for food, shelter, etc.
In return owner/master gets labor and other benefits from employee
Of course the term "slavery" is the same as we use it today when it's referring to the ownership of another human being. There is no difference between the slave-owners in this country who bought Negros as slaves and then had ownership of them and their children, then the Hebrews who owned slaves either by capture or purchase.
If slavery was the same as a worker/employer relationship then why did Yahweh consider it a bad thing when the Hebrews were in bondage "slaves" in Egypt? The whole theme of the Exodus was the freedom from bondage to another people, that is the reason for the Passover feast...to continually bring to the Hebrews remembrance that they were once in bondage to Egypt, but Yahweh set them free. Freedom is not be owned by another human being, which is far different than working as a servant.
Number 2. They were not considered "property owned" by the owner/master seen in God's Law on "slavery," for they were free and it was voluntary, not "forced slavery," so this does not come under the 10th commandment as you seem to think.
What are you talking about? Of course they were property that was owned by the master, what do you think Lev. 25 is speaking of? It says that the bondmen and bondmaids that are bought from the heathens are consider the master's possession along with their children and they are to be past down as inheritance forever!
Lev.25:44-45 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Number 3. There are many passages in the OT that God condemns forbidding ownership/slavery, here are a few:
Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death.
"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. " (Ex 21.16)
If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deut 24.7; cf. I Tim 1.10). Is this not condemning and forbidding slavery?
Exodus 21:16 is talking about kidnapping another Hebrew, which is entirely different from owning heathen slaves that Yahweh allowed the Hebrews to do, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
The main point is that Yahweh could have forbidden the ownership of other human beings, just like he forbade the Hebrews to worship other gods, but he didn't...that means he condoned it, especially since he decreed rules on how a slave-owner was to treat his property!
Rose
The reason slaves were bought is because other people already owned them!
If slavery was such an acceptable trade and occupation as you say, then why did Yahweh come down so hard on the Egyptians that enslaved the Hebrew people? Over, and over again throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh keeps reminding the Hebrews that he was the one who brought them out of BONDAGE "forced slavery"!
Rose
God came down so hard on the Egyptians because they treated the Hebrews very harshly. Unlike God who commanded slaves to be freed after 6 years, the Egyptians wanted to enslave the Jews for life and would not let them go. Wasn't God more merciful than the Egyptians?
Some slaves may be owned but most of them sold themselves to be slaves. Better to be sold as slaves than to be a destitute. If slavery was so bad why would people sold themselves to be slaves? Must be out of their mind!
God Blessings to all.:pray:
Twospirits
04-01-2012, 10:17 AM
Ram wrote,
It is true that the word "slave" has a broad range of meanings in the Bible. But that is not relevant to the issues at hand because we are focusing specifically on the laws relating to holding people as property against their will - "forced slavery." We are not talking about "servants" of kings or relations that are analogous to employers and employees. Your point would only be relevant if I falsely asserted that one of the Biblical laws was a law of forced slavery when in fact it was one of those other kinds of relationship.
It is relevant to the understanding of the culture, times and language in which they lived. Then with this understanding we could then by the context of the OT determine this type of 'slavery' from 'forced slavery.' This is why I gave background information of the article.
The real problem is the law concerning non-Hebrew slaves, and the leading scholar Catherine Hezser asserts on page 382 of her "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" that "the main source of non-Jewish slaves were prisoners of war." That's forced slavery, and that's the whole point of our discussion.
Understood, again, this background information was given in order to gain a better understanding of the things under discussion. Then we could get to the main point, 'forced slavery.'
The issue of "voluntary" slavery, while problematic in itself, is a diversion from the real moral problem of God endorsing forced slavery. We can deal with it later if you want, but I don't see the point since it's relatively irrelevant compared to the involuntary slavery that God instituted in the Bible.
Not 'a diversion,' but for reasons given above.
Deuteronomy 20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries (mas) unto thee, and they shall serve (abad) thee.
Second, the definition of "mas" is "forced servitude" -
Strong's 4522 mas Meaning: 1) gang or body of forced labourers, task-workers, labour band or gang, forced service, task-work, serfdom, tributary, tribute, levy, taskmasters, discomfited 1a) labour-band, labour-gang, slave gang 1b) gang-overseers 1c) forced service, serfdom, tribute, enforced payment
But all this is irrelevant, because we are not talking about whole cities that were forced to serve Israel. We are talking about the individuals who were sold against their will or captured in war and forced to be slaves, and who were subject to the Biblical laws governing non-Jewish slaves who could be owned as property forever.
God explicitly stated that forced slaves could be kept as property forever and you did not touch this fact anywhere in your ridiculously bloated post. (Sorry for the strong words, but please - get real! It looks like you did everything in your power to avoid the very issues that you were supposed to be refuting!)
Those non-Hebrews of the surrounding nations captured in war come under the 'laws of war status' God instituted, and these were enemies of God and his people, therefore these stipulations needed to be instituted by God to protect God's people. But as time went on the people (the leadership) did not follow God's commands he set down on how they were to be treated. It was the leadership of Israel who put them to 'forced slavery/labor. (See Joshua chapter 9, the Gibeonites deceitful tactics were successful because the Israelites failed to ask counsel of the Lord (v.14).
Lev.25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, (shall be) of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy* (Heb. 'qanah'-gain, acquire, possess) bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy* (Heb. 'qanah'-gain, acquire, possess), and of their families that (are') with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit (them for) a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever:but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
This passage in Lev. 25:44-46 says that pagans, with the understanding that these people were 'acquired' due to war, the meaning of the word 'buy' qanah given in the passage, they could be permanent 'slaves' with the understanding of "slaves" being the same definition given of a Hebrew 'slave' and his rights, with the exception of freedom and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews. What must be understood is that they were not 'slaves' in the way we view the meaning as in 'forced slavery.' They had the same rights as the Hebrew 'slave,' and Biblical laws concerning slaves God set up that are given for their protection and eventual redemption and freedom. Yes freedom, because they could become part of the covenant and part of the family and the nation, even receiving an inheritance. It is in this way God set up that they could earn their freedom as a people of God.
Biblical laws concerning pagan slaves
Ex. 21:16 says: 'He who kidnaps a man (Hebrew or non-Hebrew), whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.'
Deut. 24:7 states: 'If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.'
Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man. The Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude (forced slavery). Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deut. 23:15-16 states:
You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.
This implied runaway slaves would have the same degree of rights a Hebrew 'slave' had, and must be treated justly. Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law (voluntary) than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein. A slave-market could not exist in Israel.
Slaves could be circumcised, brought into the covenant and then eat of the Passover meal (Ex. 12:43-44; Gen. 17:12-13). Slaves could also eat of holy things (Lev. 22:10-11).
Slaves had some rights and position in the home and could share in the inheritance. (See Gen. 24:2 and Prov. 17:2.)
Slaves were to rest on the Sabbath like everyone else. The Fourth Commandment applied to all (Ex. 20:8-11).
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery, but did not condone it. God set up laws to abolish it, slavery was not God's original intention.
God bless---Twospirits
God came down so hard on the Egyptians because they treated the Hebrews very harshly. Unlike God who commanded slaves to be freed after 6 years, the Egyptians wanted to enslave the Jews for life and would not let them go. Wasn't God more merciful than the Egyptians?
Some slaves may be owned but most of them sold themselves to be slaves. Better to be sold as slaves than to be a destitute. If slavery was so bad why would people sold themselves to be slaves? Must be out of their mind!
God Blessings to all.:pray:
Sorry Cheow you are wrong. It was only the Hebrew slaves that were freed after 6 years, heathen slaves were enslaved for life along with their children.
Lev.25:44-45 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Your words on slavery show your total ignorance and lack of feelings for other human beings. I think you need to read some books written by those who were slaves in the South, like Fredrick K. Douglas...they would have chosen destitution any day over their lives being owned by a slave-holder.
Rose
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery, but did not condone it. God set up laws to abolish it, slavery was not God's original intention.
God bless---Twospirits
The laws of God not only recognized slavery, but did indeed condone it by the fact of setting up laws that allowed for the Hebrews to OWN human beings as possessions for life, and if they beat them to the point of death, but they could get up and walk in two days then the slave-owner was not punished, because the master had bought the slave with his own money!
Exo.21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
You must remember God set up all sorts of laws for the Hebrews to obey that went against the customs of the times, like worshiping one god, and the Sabbath laws, so saying that God allowed slavery, because it existed in the world is just an excuse to try and justify God's immoral behavior of allowing people to own other people as slaves.
There was not one law set up to abolish slavery, in fact slavery continued into the New Testament with no condemnation of it there either...quite the opposite happened...slaves were exhorted to obey their masters and not seek freedom! Bet the slave-owners loved that one. :lol:
Rose
Twospirits
04-01-2012, 11:48 AM
Rose wrote,
Of course the term "slavery" is the same as we use it today when it's referring to the ownership of another human being. There is no difference between the slave-owners in this country who bought Negros as slaves and then had ownership of them and their children, then the Hebrews who owned slaves either by capture or purchase.
The source I posted shows using the historical evidence of the ancient near east when applied to the laws of God concerning 'slaves,' it was done through self-sale or family-sale and was voluntary. These were choices by the impoverished to enter this dependency state, in return for economic security and protection.
Even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). But concerning their freedom, there were stipulations (see below).
What are you talking about? Of course they were property that was owned by the master, what do you think Lev. 25 is speaking of? It says that the bondmen and bondmaids that are bought from the heathens are consider the master's possession along with their children and they are to be past down as inheritance forever!
Lev.25:44-45 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Those non-Hebrews of the surrounding nations captured in war come under the 'laws of war status' God instituted, and these were enemies of God and his people, therefore these stipulations needed to be instituted by God to protect God's people.
This passage in Lev. 25:44-46 says that pagans, with the understanding that these people were 'acquired' due to war, this is the meaning of the word 'buy' qanah (possess, acquire) given in the passage, could be permanent 'slaves'--'slave' being the same 'definition' given of a Hebrew 'slave' and his rights, with the exception of freedom and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews. What must be understood is that they were not 'slaves' in the way we view the meaning as in 'forced slavery.' They had the same rights as the Hebrew 'slave,' and Biblical laws concerning slaves God set up that are given for their protection and eventual redemption and freedom. Slaves could become part of the covenant and part of the family, even receiving an inheritance. In this way they could earn their freedom as a people of God.
Biblical laws concerning pagan slaves
Ex. 21:16 says: 'He who kidnaps a man (Hebrew or non-Hebrew), whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.'
Deut. 24:7 states: 'If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.'
Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man. The Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude (forced slavery). Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deut. 23:15-16 states:
You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.
This implied runaway slaves would have the same degree of rights a Hebrew 'slave' had, and must be treated justly. Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein. A slave-market could not exist in Israel.
Slaves could be circumcised, brought into the covenant and then eat of the Passover meal (Ex. 12:43-44; Gen. 17:12-13). Slaves could also eat of holy things (Lev. 22:10-11).
Slaves had some rights and position in the home and could share in the inheritance. (See Gen. 24:2 and Prov. 17:2.)
Slaves were to rest on the Sabbath like everyone else. The Fourth Commandment applied to all (Ex. 20:8-11).
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery, but did not condone it. God set up laws to abolish it, slavery was not God's original intention.
Exodus 21:16 is talking about kidnapping another Hebrew, which is entirely different from owning heathen slaves that Yahweh allowed the Hebrews to do, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
No its not: Ex. 21:16 says: 'He who kidnaps a man (Hebrew or non-Hebrew), whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.'
The main point is that Yahweh could have forbidden the ownership of other human beings, just like he forbade the Hebrews to worship other gods, but he didn't...that means he condoned it, especially since he decreed rules on how a slave-owner was to treat his property!
He did forbid ownership of other human beings by the institution of his laws, the penalty for that was death. How much clearer can that be?
God bless---Twospirits
Richard Amiel McGough
04-01-2012, 12:00 PM
Those non-Hebrews of the surrounding nations captured in war come under the 'laws of war status' God instituted, and these were enemies of God and his people, therefore these stipulations needed to be instituted by God to protect God's people. But as time went on the people (the leadership) did not follow God's commands he set down on how they were to be treated. It was the leadership of Israel who put them to 'forced slavery/labor. (See Joshua chapter 9, the Gibeonites deceitful tactics were successful because the Israelites failed to ask counsel of the Lord (v.14).
Lev.25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, (shall be) of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy* (Heb. 'qanah'-gain, acquire, possess) bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy* (Heb. 'qanah'-gain, acquire, possess), and of their families that (are') with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit (them for) a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever:but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
This passage in Lev. 25:44-46 says that pagans, with the understanding that these people were 'acquired' due to war, the meaning of the word 'buy' qanah given in the passage, they could be permanent 'slaves' with the understanding of "slaves" being the same definition given of a Hebrew 'slave' and his rights, with the exception of freedom and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews. What must be understood is that they were not 'slaves' in the way we view the meaning as in 'forced slavery.' They had the same rights as the Hebrew 'slave,' and Biblical laws concerning slaves God set up that are given for their protection and eventual redemption and freedom. Yes freedom, because they could become part of the covenant and part of the family and the nation, even receiving an inheritance. It is in this way God set up that they could earn their freedom as a people of God.
Good morning Henry, :tea:
I am totally confused by your assertion that non-Hebrew slaves had the same rights as Hebrew slaves. This directly contradicts the text which states that Hebrew slaves must be freed after six years whereas non-Hebrew slaves, and their descendents, could be kept as slaves forever. Where did you get this idea?
It common knowledge that there were two different sets of laws governing Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves. The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery) explains it this way:
The Jewish Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bible) contains two sets of rules governing slaves: one set for Jewish slaves (Lev 25:39-43) and a second set for Canaanite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan) slaves (Lev 25:45-46).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery#cite_note-Hastings.2C_p_619-0)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery#cite_note-Hezser.2C_p_29-5) The main source of non-Jewish slaves were prisoners of war.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery#cite_note-Hezser.2C_p_382-3) Jewish slaves, in contrast to non-Jewish slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to a Jewish owner) or because of inability to pay a debt.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery#cite_note-Hezser.2C_p_6-2)
Biblical laws concerning pagan slaves
Ex. 21:16 says: 'He who kidnaps a man (Hebrew or non-Hebrew), whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.'
Deut. 24:7 states: 'If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.'
Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man. The Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude (forced slavery).
There is nothing in the text of Exodus that supports your assertion that "this was true for any man." That's a mere assertion, and it contradicts the parallel passage in Deuteronomy that explicitly limits the "man" to a "son of Israel." Furthermore, you assertion contradicts the context of Exodus 21 which speaks exclusively of laws that were given to Israel, not the Gentiles:
Exodus 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. 7 ¶ And if a man [obviously the generic term "man" here means "Hebrew man" because he cannot sell her to a "strange nation"] sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. 12 ¶ He that smiteth a man [again, this is speaking about striking a Hebrew], so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. 14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15 ¶ And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16 ¶ And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
The entire context contains laws about how Hebrews were supposed to control their own behavior. God was not giving general laws that applied also to Gentiles. These are the laws God gave to Israel. For example, God was not imposing the death penalty upon any Gentile that "smiteth his father."
Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deut. 23:15-16 states:
You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.
This implied runaway slaves would have the same degree of rights a Hebrew 'slave' had, and must be treated justly. Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law (voluntary) than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein. A slave-market could not exist in Israel.
That's a very interesting verse. But you need to study it because you have made a false assumption. You think that applies to slaves owned by other Hebrews. That is contrary to the near universal opinion of the scholars according to Duane L. Christensen in his Word Biblical Commentary : Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 article:
Though virtually all commentators have interpreted the law of the fugitive slave (23:16–17) as referring to a slave who comes to Israel from a foreign country, it is also possible to see Jacob/Israel as the slave who has left a foreign master in another country to find asylum in the land of Canaan. What the law bans, then, is precisely what parallel laws in the ancient Near East enjoin: the extradition of the fugitive slave. 'The only thing remotely close to this biblical law in the ancient world is the practice at certain temples of granting asylum to slaves fleeing harsh treatment by their masters' (Tigay [1996] 215). Even in these cases, the asylum was only temporary, designed to protect the slave until he could come to terms with his former master or be sold to another master. (See Greenfield, FS (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn1) H. Tadmor, 272–78; see also W. Westermann, Slave Systems, 17–18, 38–39, 40–41; citations from Tigay [1996] 387, n. 59.)
The law you cite does not appear to apply to slaves owned by other Hebrews. And that makes a lot of sense, since it would have made it impossible for Hebrew slave owners to keep their property! They all could have just gotten up and walked away, with their wives and children, in direct contradiction to God's command:
Exodus 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
This law would be utterly meaningless if the slaves were free to up and go at will.
Slaves could be circumcised, brought into the covenant and then eat of the Passover meal (Ex. 12:43-44; Gen. 17:12-13). Slaves could also eat of holy things (Lev. 22:10-11).
Slaves had some rights and position in the home and could share in the inheritance. (See Gen. 24:2 and Prov. 17:2.)
Slaves were to rest on the Sabbath like everyone else. The Fourth Commandment applied to all (Ex. 20:8-11).
That's true ... and slaves in the south were allowed to go to church on Sundays (where they were usually exhorted with passages like "Slaves, obey your masters!" - no joke!).
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery, but did not condone it. God set up laws to abolish it, slavery was not God's original intention.
God bless---Twospirits
There you go again. You have not quoted a single word from the Bible that suggests God wanted to abolish slavery, yet you make a big bold underlined assertion that directly contradicts the universally recognized fact that God established rules both tacitly and explicitly endorsing slavery in both the Old and New Testaments! This seems very strange. Are not our conclusions supposed to be based on facts supported by evidence?
Great chatting!
Richard
Twospirits
04-01-2012, 12:53 PM
Good morning Henry, :tea:
I am totally confused by your assertion that non-Hebrew slaves had the same rights as Hebrew slaves. This directly contradicts the text which states that Hebrew slaves must be freed after six years whereas non-Hebrew slaves, and their descendents, could be kept as slaves forever. Where did you get this idea?
It common knowledge that there were two different sets of laws governing Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves. The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery) explains it this way:
The Jewish Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bible) contains two sets of rules governing slaves: one set for Jewish slaves (Lev 25:39-43) and a second set for Canaanite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan) slaves (Lev 25:45-46).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery#cite_note-Hastings.2C_p_619-0)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery#cite_note-Hezser.2C_p_29-5) The main source of non-Jewish slaves were prisoners of war.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery#cite_note-Hezser.2C_p_382-3) Jewish slaves, in contrast to non-Jewish slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to a Jewish owner) or because of inability to pay a debt.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery#cite_note-Hezser.2C_p_6-2)
There is nothing in the text of Exodus that supports your assertion that "this was true for any man." That's a mere assertion, and it contradicts the parallel passage in Deuteronomy that explicitly limits the "man" to a "son of Israel." Furthermore, you assertion contradicts the context of Exodus 21 which speaks exclusively of laws that were given to Israel, not the Gentiles:
Exodus 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. 7 ¶ And if a man [obviously the generic term "man" here means "Hebrew man" because he cannot sell her to a "strange nation"] sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. 12 ¶ He that smiteth a man [again, this is speaking about striking a Hebrew], so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. 14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15 ¶ And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16 ¶ And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
The entire context contains laws about how Hebrews were supposed to control their own behavior. God was not giving general laws that applied also to Gentiles. These are the laws God gave to Israel. For example, God was not imposing the death penalty upon any Gentile that "smiteth his father."
That's a very interesting verse. But you need to study it because you have made a false assumption. You think that applies to slaves owned by other Hebrews. That is contrary to the near universal opinion of the scholars according to Duane L. Christensen in his Word Biblical Commentary : Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 article:
Though virtually all commentators have interpreted the law of the fugitive slave (23:16–17) as referring to a slave who comes to Israel from a foreign country, it is also possible to see Jacob/Israel as the slave who has left a foreign master in another country to find asylum in the land of Canaan. What the law bans, then, is precisely what parallel laws in the ancient Near East enjoin: the extradition of the fugitive slave. 'The only thing remotely close to this biblical law in the ancient world is the practice at certain temples of granting asylum to slaves fleeing harsh treatment by their masters' (Tigay [1996] 215). Even in these cases, the asylum was only temporary, designed to protect the slave until he could come to terms with his former master or be sold to another master. (See Greenfield, FS (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn1) H. Tadmor, 272–78; see also W. Westermann, Slave Systems, 17–18, 38–39, 40–41; citations from Tigay [1996] 387, n. 59.)
The law you cite does not appear to apply to slaves owned by other Hebrews. And that makes a lot of sense, since it would have made it impossible for Hebrew slave owners to keep their property! They all could have just gotten up and walked away, with their wives and children, in direct contradiction to God's command:
Exodus 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
This law would be utterly meaningless if the slaves were free to up and go at will.
That's true ... and slaves in the south were allowed to go to church on Sundays (where they were usually exhorted with passages like "Slaves, obey your masters!" - no joke!).
There you go again. You have not quoted a single word from the Bible that suggests God wanted to abolish slavery, yet you make a big bold underlined assertion that directly contradicts the universally recognized fact that God established rules both tacitly and explicitly endorsing slavery in both the Old and New Testaments! This seems very strange. Are not our conclusions supposed to be based on facts supported by evidence?
Great chatting!
Richard
There is nothing further I can add to this discussion for I feel enough evidence has been given which shows that God did not endorse or condone forced slavery, but set up laws to abolish slavery had the Israelites obeyed him when they entered the Promised Land. If others wish to continue discussing this with Richard and Rose that would be fine. I will close my discussion on this with God's Word saying: "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex (mistreat) him. (But) the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born (native) among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God" (Lev. 19:33-34).
These words don't sound to me like a God who endorses and condones forced slavery.
Nice chatting
God bless---Twospirits
Those non-Hebrews of the surrounding nations captured in war come under the 'laws of war status' God instituted, and these were enemies of God and his people, therefore these stipulations needed to be instituted by God to protect God's people.
This passage in Lev. 25:44-46 says that pagans, with the understanding that these people were 'acquired' due to war, this is the meaning of the word 'buy' qanah (possess, acquire) given in the passage, could be permanent 'slaves'--'slave' being the same 'definition' given of a Hebrew 'slave' and his rights, with the exception of freedom and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews. What must be understood is that they were not 'slaves' in the way we view the meaning as in 'forced slavery.' They had the same rights as the Hebrew 'slave,' and Biblical laws concerning slaves God set up that are given for their protection and eventual redemption and freedom. Slaves could become part of the covenant and part of the family, even receiving an inheritance. In this way they could earn their freedom as a people of God.
What do you mean they were not forced slaves? Lev.25 clearly says if the heathen slaves whom the Hebrews have bought for possessions beget children then the slave families become the inheritance that is passed down as a possession forever...possession means ownership. The closing sentence specifically says the Hebrews are NOT to rule over each other in the same manner as they do the heathens, a clear distinction is made between the Hebrews and the heathen.
Lev.25:44-45 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
He did forbid ownership of other human beings by the institution of his laws, the penalty for that was death. How much clearer can that be?
God bless---Twospirits
What do you mean God forbid ownership of other human beings? Look at the verse quoted below, it says if a slave didn't die within two days of being beaten then the slave-owner was NOT to be punished, because he had bought the slave with his own money...he owned the slave, it was his property! It doesn't get any clearer than that.
Exo.21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
04-01-2012, 01:17 PM
There is nothing further I can add to this discussion for I feel enough evidence has been given which shows that God did not endorse or condone forced slavery, but set up laws to abolish slavery had the Israelites obeyed him when they entered the Promised Land. If others wish to continue discussing this with Richard and Rose that would be fine. I will close my discussion on this with God's Word saying: "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex (mistreat) him. (But) the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born (native) among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God" (Lev. 19:33-34).
These words don't sound to me like a God who endorses and condones forced slavery.
Nice chatting
God bless---Twospirits
Henry,
I can understand your frustration, but please, GET REAL! You wrote a HUGE long post dealing with everything except the issue of forced slavery, and then you simply declared that you had dealt with that issue when in fact you had not touched it. And now you claim again that you have given evidence when in fact you have not. If you are satisfied with this, so be it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you have actually answered the real issues. That was my complaint in your original post where you went on and on about "voluntary" slavery which is mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand. And like I said then, so I will repeat, that long post served only to obscure the real issue. That seemed to be its purpose. You have not dealt with the issue of perpeptual slavery which went on for generations, with children being born into it. You have not refuted all my refutations of your arguments.
As for the command to love sojourners - how does that the relate to God's command to murder all the people that were living in the promised land, let alone his endorsement of forced slavery?
All the best,
Richard
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.