- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Does the OT "condone" slavery.
A definition of CONDONE
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
Does the Old Testament "overlook" slavery? The OT gives attention to slavery in many instances.
Does the Old Testament forgive slavery ? Perhaps in some circumstances I would say it forgives indebted servitude. Clearly, aspects of slavery it would not forgive. For example the slave being beaten so harshly that he or she died was not forgiven but treated as capital murder.
So in any and all instances I could not say the OT "forgives" all aspects of what may happen in that instatution.
Does the Old Testament "disregard (an offense) without protest or censure" slavery? It should be obvious from the quotations from the Bible that it did highlight offense with protest and prescribe censure to certain acts.
So according to this definition, I would not say slavery was CONDONED by the Old Testament.
If and WHEN slavery occurs, guidelines, protests, censures, penalties were prescribed.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
What would the Old Testament say ?
A nation says it is a nation under God seeking to hold up Old Testament laws as civil laws for its society.
Some of those travel to a far country and kidnap people into slavery with or without the help of other people in that nation.
So let's see how this action holds up under the Old Testament Law of Moses:
Exodus 21:16 - He who KIDNAPS a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."
John Newton, the famous repentant slave trader, probably never would have had a chance to write the hymn "Amazing Grace". He would have been executed for kidnapping people.
" ... shall surely be out to death" for stealing black people out of Africa to be slaves. Case closed.
DEATH PENALTY, says the Old Testament, for KIDNAPPING human beings into slavery.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by vivifyYou don't need to imagine.
Imagine if a religion permitted rape, but with conditions like "he must buy her flowers after", or "can't use force, but must safely drug her". Wouldn't I it be a vile thing to defend these as "nice" rapes?
The same goes for the OP and his "nice slavery".
The OT DOES permit rape.
As long as the girl is unmarried and not betrothed to anyone you can rape
her, and then you just have to pay a fine and marry her.
It was actually a common practice at different points in history.
EDIT: And that's not including sex slaves who you can obviously rape as
much as you like.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The same goes for the OP and his "nice slavery".
For sure kidnapping to get slaves was so nice that it was rewarded with punishment by death.
I realize to modern western ears "SLAVE" carries an extremely negative content reminder. I am a descendent of "slaves" in America. I don't think I need to be reminded how horrible the connotation of "slavery" is as a word.
But servitude, ie slavery in a few forms has been apart of human living.
And often servitude or dept slavery was a respectable and even noble way to pay off one's debts.
Then there is slavery in Ancient Near East which was not so good. Neither was divorce not so good. But God through Moses made provisions for if and when it should happen, just the same way provision was made for divorce which God hated, occurred.
Interestingly God made a law of the seven year Jubilee. All dept slaves were to be freed. Some critics have pointed out that a similar cycle of manumission occurred in the code of Hammurabi where slaves were freed every three years.
"Na, na, nana, na - The code of Hammurabi does better than Yahweh in the Bible. "
Okay, three years seems better than seven years. But the class distinction of persons inherent dignity in that code and in other Ancient Near Eastern law codes were much more distinct. Legislation corresponding to slaves, free persons, government officials, priests, and others was stressed as definitely stratified.
The Old Testament however emphasizes that no king was above the law. David and Ahab were not above God's rebuke and punishment. They were both found guilty for murder - David concerning Uriah and Ahab concerning Naboth. God's prophet confronted them for taking innocent lives of two ordinary citizens.
The Israelite kings did not get a pass for evils done to those "lower" on the totem pole. God repeatedly brought severe judgments directly on royal perpetrators for heinous crimes.
Solomon's idolatry is a case (1 Kings 11:13).
Uzziah's leprosy is another case (2 Chron. 26:19) .
Manasseh's sending into exile is another case (2 Chron. 33:10-11).
There are many more cases.
The point is that though the Code of Hammurabi in some instances could be debt free in less time then the Hebrew seven year Jubilee, the Old Testament still did more to affirm the equal personhood of all classes of people.
The slave's right of manumission was exclusively in the hands of slave's owner in those cultures because his superior class made him worth more.
Not so in Israel. If servanthood had to be experienced in Israel or other ancient NE cultures, the sane person would pick Israel's laws, I think. Israel's laws revealed a greater sensitivity to the created dignity of all human beings regardless of debts or social class.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudge
The OT DOES permit rape.
As long as the girl is unmarried and not betrothed to anyone you can rape
her, and then you just have to pay a fine and marry her.
Chapter - verses ?
What I am looking for is the clear commandment from God - ie. "IN THIS CASE YOU CAN RAPE HER."
Originally posted by sonshipYou're shifting the topic from forced slavery to those who willingly agree to become slaves. In that case, they aren't really slaves, they are indentured servants. This isn't what we have a problem with, and it's a cheap tactic to try and ease the conversation over to a more palatable form of slavery, just to defend your bible, when your bible clearly condones actual slavery, meaning forced servitude.The same goes for the OP and his "nice slavery".
For sure kidnapping to get slaves was so nice that it was rewarded with punishment by death.
I realize to modern western ears "SLAVE" carries an extremely negative content reminder. I am a descendent of "slaves" in America. I don't think I need to be reminded how horrible the connota ...[text shortened]... ater sensitivity to the created dignity of all human beings regardless of debts or social class.
Originally posted by sonshipThe bible doesn't really condone it, but there's not much of a punishment for it either. A fine must be paid if an unmarried woman is raped, and he can't ever divorce the woman. If a man rapes a woman who he wants to marry anyway, this is hardly a punishment.The OT DOES permit rape.
As long as the girl is unmarried and not betrothed to anyone you can rape
her, and then you just have to pay a fine and marry her.
Chapter - verses ?
What I am looking for is the clear commandment from God - ie. "IN THIS CASE YOU CAN RAPE HER."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by vivify
You're shifting the topic from forced slavery to those who willingly agree to become slaves. In that case, they aren't really slaves, they are indentured servants. This isn't what we have a problem with, and it's a cheap tactic to try and ease the conversation over to a more palatable form of slavery, just to defend your bible, when your bible clearly condones actual slavery, meaning forced servitude.
The fourth paragraph group down I wrote:
Then there is slavery in Ancient Near East which was not so good. Neither was divorce so good [edited]. But God through Moses made provisions for if and when it should happen, just the same way provision was made for divorce which God hated, occurred.
That was a recognition that we can not with rose colored glasses assume that all ancient slavery in Israel was pure debt servitude.
The Gibeonites, for example, were hewers of wood and drawers of water as slaves. I would have to spend time to study again that situation.
But I did not gloss over other forms of servitude.
Significantly, kidnapping for slavery, was still a offense punishable by death.
And refuge to slaves fleeing from cruel masters from other countries was still to be honored. It was forbidden to send them back to those masters.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Please sign your tag under this, indicating your concern if this is the situation:
"If I confess I am a sinner and receive Jesus Christ for salvation and redemption, I will not be able to be a Christian in good conscience. The reason is that I might have to have slaves, or stone a woman according to the Law of Moses."
Please indicate if one or more of the laws of Moses forbid you to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior according to the "new covenant".
Just sign your ID below.
27 Feb 15
Originally posted by sonshipYou can't possibly compare being enslaved to being divorced. That's like saying "yeah, God doesn't stabbing babies in the face, but he also doesn't like it when people swear at each other."
The fourth paragraph group down I wrote:
Then there is slavery in Ancient Near East which was not so good. Neither was divorce not so good. But God through Moses made provisions for if and when it should happen, just the same way provision was made for divorce which God hated, occurred.
That was a recognition that we can not with rose colored glasses assume that all ancient slavery in Israel was pure debt servitude.
Divorce, unlike slavery, can be a good thing if both people in the marriage are unhappy. You can't compare the two.
27 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou have to understand that there are two separate offences. One is sex without consent and the other is forced sex. In the ancient world the relevant consent came from the father, not from the woman. So she might be perfectly happy with the idea, but if the father doesn't know/want it then it is rape - analogous to the US offence of statutory rape. Forced sex would almost invariably be regarded as beneath contempt, assuming of course the victim was not an unimportant foreigner or a slave. So where the Old Testament appears to be condoning rape, what it is actually condoning is pre-marital sex without the fathers permission.
You don't need to imagine.
The OT DOES permit rape.
As long as the girl is unmarried and not betrothed to anyone you can rape
her, and then you just have to pay a fine and marry her.
It was actually a common practice at different points in history.
EDIT: And that's not including sex slaves who you can obviously rape as
much as you like.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by vivifyWell, I have never been divorced. From what I hear from very frank and honest once married people is not good.
Sometimes an honest person will admit that the they feel torn apart in deep psychological wounds from divorce.
The book of Malachi says that God considered divorces as violent and treacherous. Inwardly in the deep sentiments of one's self esteem and self worth divorce is a violent wound.
Now there are always exceptions. And some instances with a very badly abused spouse separation or divorce is a relief.
There are exceptions to slavery also. When the OLDEST slaves were set free in the American South, some died in their cabins. They were too old to be taken care of and too old to do anything else.
This might be comparable to the jailed person who has been incarcerated so long that the thought of freedom out of the penitentiary is scary. This was brought out in the realistic movie Shawshank Redemption.
One man committed suicide upon being freed.
Another man was tempted to get a gun and do another robbery because his whole life had been PRISON. He knew no other life.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not excusing slavery.
I am also not suggesting divorce may not be preferable at some time.
For now I think some sanity has been displayed from you critics by the admission that RAPE is not condoned or commanded anywhere in the Bible.
There was a law for the slave who wanted to serve his master for life.
If we overlook that some master/slave relationships may have been good, God did not overlook it. And He made provision for that exception.
In this theocratic nation it was God's intention that if they OBEYED all His righteous commands there would BE no poverty and no need for slavery. Since He knew that to some degree they would be like the surrounding nations, He made provision for that.
But ideally an obedient Israel to their God would yield a blessed nation in which there was no shortage.
"At the end of every seven years you shall grant remission of debts. This is the manner of remission: every creditor shall release what he has loaned to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord's remission has been proclaimed. From a foreigner you may exact it [which was typically for business transactions, ...] but your hand shall release whatever of yours is with your brother.
However, there will be no poor among you, since the Lord will surely bless you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, if only you listen obediently to the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all this commandment which I am commanding you today. For the Lord your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you." (See Deut. 15:1-18)
I stop here for length's sake.
The LAND was to stay in the hands of the covenant people - Israel. So foreigners had an option to leave, to become Israelites of the covenant themselves, or to be slaves, employees, servants, etc.
I think that for this uniquely one time in history genuine theocratic nation God instituted most righteous laws.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtComplete bull. The punishment for not being a virgin at the time of marriage (for a woman) is death by stoning. That's hardly "condoning" premarital sex.
You have to understand that there are two separate offences. One is sex without consent and the other is forced sex. In the ancient world the relevant consent came from the father, not from the woman. So she might be perfectly happy with the idea, but if the father doesn't know/want it then it is rape - analogous to the US offence of statutory rape. ...[text shortened]... condoning rape, what it is actually condoning is pre-marital sex without the fathers permission.
However, the punishment for rape--a word specifically used by the bible--is merely a fine.