Why would an omni-benevolent god condone slavery?

[Aleister66]

Overview

The bible explicitly endorses two types of slavery....indentured servitude (for Hebrews) and chattel slavery (for non-Hebrews). With indentured servitude, a person voluntarily agreed to sell his labor to his master for a temporary period of time after which the servant would be granted some kind of remuneration. With chattel slavery (the type of slavery that existed in America during the 1800s), the slave was the permanent property of his master. Most Christians acknowledge that indentured servitude existed for Hebrews, so I won't discuss this. I want to concentrate on the slavery that applied to non-Hebrews (i.e. chattel slavery). Below I will show that the Hebrews got their chattel slaves by buying them or capturing them during war.

Obtaining slaves through purchase

Leviticus 25:44-46 says that the Hebrews can buy non-Hebrew slaves as permanent property. This is in contrast to Hebrew indentured servants who entered into a contract with their masters for a set period (7 years). Indentured servants couldn't be bequeathed as inheritance because they were not considered permanent property. Also, notice that this passage makes a distinction between the treatment of Hebrews servants who are not to be treated ruthlessly like non-Hebrews were.

Obtaining slaves through warfare

The second way chattel slaves could be obtained is by attacking foreign cities and enslaving the inhabitants. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 says that when the Hebrews attacked a non-Hebrew city they made an offer to the inhabitants:
(1) surrender and pay a tribute (i.e. they would be forced to work for the Hebrews) OR
(2) the men would be slaughtered and women/children and livestock taken as plunder.

In case (2), women and children are described as plunder, which is property that is (usually violently) acquired by the victor during a war. Here the Hebrews could march into a house of the conquered city and drag out any women and children and enslave them. These weren't combatants and posed little treat to the Hebrews, but they were of economic value.

Why is slavery wrong?

Today we recognize that slavery is immoral because slavery, by its very nature, is a violation of a person’s liberty. It reduces people into objects that can be owned. Some apologists claim that slaves were treated with kindness and not abused like black slaves in America were. Even if this was true, this makes no difference to the morality of owning another person as property - slavery was and will always be immoral. Other apologists argue that these laws are no longer in force. Again this is irrelevant. The fact is that there was a point in history where god thought that owning another person as property (chattel slavery) was okay.

My question is, if an omnipotent and benevolent god exists and he gave these laws to humans, why would he condone slavery? A benevolent god and a god that condoned slavery is a contradiction. Either the god of the bible exists, in which case he isn't benevolent or he doesn't exist.

Below is an excellent video which counters many of the objections that apologists commonly make:

 

[Aleister66]

Below, I've listed a few of the common objections that people make to the above, together with my response.

Claim 1: Exodus 21:16 bans the practice of slavery

No it doesn't and anyone who makes this claim is either dishonest or hasn't read their Bible properly. Exodus 21:16 says "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." This verse is about kidnapping and says nothing about slave traders or slave holders in general. The main ways that Hebrews were legally allowed to acquire slaves were through purchase or inheritance (Leviticus 25:44-46) or warfare (Deuteronomy 20:10-18). Slaves could also be obtained if a female slave gave birth since her children automatically became slaves as well. Exodus 21:6 also provides a means by which a master could turn a Hebrew indentured servant into a permanent slave.

Furthermore, the consensus view among Biblical commentators is that this verse only applies to kidnapping Hebrews i.e. this laws didn't prohibit kidnapping and enslaving foreigners. See https://www.studylight.org/commentary/exodus/21-16.html

Claim 2: Deuteronomy 23:15-16 shows slavery was voluntary because a slave could leave if he was abused

This is not true. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."

Take note of the underlined portion above. The law is telling Hebrews to allow slaves who have escaped their foreign masters in foreign lands to settle in one of their (Hebrew) towns.

Even if it did apply to all slaves, it just meant that Hebrew masters had to keep their slaves locked up if they thought that they might escape. It doesn't mean that slaves were free to leave when they chose.

Claim 3: Slavery in 17th-19th century America was unbiblical

No, slavery in the America was based on the Bible. See:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crosse...cal-slavery-was-the-same-as-american-slavery/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Massachusetts

Claim 4: Slavery in the Bible was more enlightened than that of 17th-19th century America

Even granting this point for the sake of argument, this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.

Even if you thought that the morality of slavery is influenced by how well a slave is treated, what evidence is there that slaves were treated any better than in America? There were laws in the Bible that protected slaves from being abused:

• Killing a slave merited punishment (Exodus 21:20)
• Permanently injured slaves had to be set free (Exodus 21:26-27)
• Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were effectively freed (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
• The law also gave slaves a day of rest every week (Exodus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 5:14)

However, the mere existence of the these laws doesn't mean that they were followed in practice. There were laws that protected American slaves from being mistreated too.

• the 1739 South Carolina code limited the number of hours that slaves could be made to work and fined anyone who killed a slave £700.
• The 1833 Alabama law code dictated, “Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person.”
• Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master
• In 1791, the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder unless it was done who was resisting or under moderate correction
• The South Carolina slave code was revised in 1739, with the following amendments:
  • No slave could work on Sunday, or work more than 15 hours per day in summer and 14 hours in winter.
  • The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350.

Does this mean American slaves were not mistreated? What evidence is there that the Hebrews treated their slaves well? Regardless, as I pointed out above, the way slaves were treated makes no difference to the morality of owning other people as objects - it is always wrong.

Claim 5: God tolerated slavery just like he tolerated divorce, because of the "hardness of peoples hearts", he knew they wouldn't obey him

Do you really think that God wouldn't make a law if he thought that people might have difficulty following it? What about "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” Not only have humans always had great difficulty in following these, these are minor in comparison with chattel slavery. Why the inconsistency?

A good moral teacher doesn't tell his followers that they can engage in immoral behavior if they find it difficult to refrain from it. He tells them what ideals they should aspire to. Where does God tell the Hebrews that slavery is wrong?

Claim 6: Christians brought an end to slavery in the US

Christians may have been responsible for ending slavery in the US, but remember virtually everyone identified as a Christian at the time. Also Christians on both sides of the slavery debate used the Bible to justify their views.

Many southern Christians felt that slavery, in one Baptist minister’s words, “stands as an institution of God.” Here are some common arguments made by Christians, who supported slavery at the time:

• Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Genesis 21:9-10).
• Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Genesis 9:24-27).
• The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Exodus 20:10, 17).
• Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.
• The apostle Paul specifically commanded slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8).
• Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philemon 12).

While there were also many Christians who opposed slavery, they picked and chose the verses that supported their cause and ignored or interpreted away the verses that didn't. In particular they ignored 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, which says "each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them." The fact that it also says "although if you can gain your freedom, do so" is more of an afterthought and of no real help to the slave. It effectively said: “if your master lets you go, then take your freedom”. I can imagine a slaves response to be "Gee, thanks for nothing!"

Also remember that although the Abolitionist Movement used religious arguments against slavery, there there were also many enlightened thinkers who condemned slavery on humanistic grounds. People realized that slavery was deeply immoral because:

• It reduces people to objects that can be owned
• Increases leads to a great deal of suffering
• It exploits and degrades human beings
• It violates basic human rights
• It perpetuates the abuse of children

My view is that the Abolitionist Movement was successful in ending slavery, in spite of, and not because of Christianity or the Bible.

 

[Aleister66]

Claim 7: Jesus was against slavery

Jesus refers to slaves and their masters in his parables as if slavery was the natural order of the day. Slaves in the parable of the prodigal son perform routine work in the background of the estate (Luke 15:22, Luke 15:26). Other parables depict cruel treatment of slaves, such as the parable of the wicked tenants. Slaves are disposable: they suffer beatings and death at the hands of tenants (Matt 21:33-44, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-18). Other New Testament writers accepted violence against slaves as normal as seen in these parables (see Matt 18:23-35, Luke 19:11-27). If Jesus thought that "love thy neighbor" was inconsistent with keeping slaves as property, don't you think it is strange that he never spoke out against slavery or at the very least, told his followers that slavery was not ideal?

Claim 8: The Golden Rule effectively banned slavery

The Golden Rule was not a pronouncement against slavery! If it was, why wasn’t it obvious to the large swaths of “Founded as a Christian Nation” America for over 200 years?

Also Matthew 7:12 is just Jesus repeating Leviticus 19:11-18. Jesus’ audience, well-versed in their scriptures, would have known that he was quoting from Leviticus, one of the “Five Books of Moses.” They would also have known that these books include Deuteronomy, which commands Israel to invade and enslave distant cities, and Exodus, which says that slaves are just “property” and may be beaten so severely that they can’t even get up for just shy of two days. Unless we are prepared to say that one book of the Pentateuch contradicts another, it’s hard to see how the Golden Rule in Leviticus overrides the slavery passages Deuteronomy and Exodus — at least not for Jesus’ audience.

For that matter, Leviticus itself grants Israel permission to buy foreign slaves. Would Jesus’ audience have thought Leviticus could contradict itself? Would Jesus? Would today’s Bible-believing Christians? I don’t think so.

So, in the minds of Jesus’ audience, and possibly for Jesus himself, it would have been far from obvious that the Golden Rule outlawed slavery. In their minds, the two concepts had coexisted in the scriptures, presumably without contradiction, for centuries.

If Jesus had intended his statement of Leviticus 19:18 to override the slavery commands and regulations also found in the Five Books of Moses, surely he would have made that more obvious to an audience for whom those books were a central feature of spiritual life.

Regardless of the above, if Jesus meant the Golden Rule as a command to abolish slavery, then millions of slaves in the next 1800 years would wish he had made his intent far more obvious.

Claim 9: Chattel slavery was God’s punishment against wicked nations

If slaves were acquired during war as described in Deuteronomy 20:10-18 for punishment, it seems bizarre that God would judge a whole nation by the actions of a group of individuals within that nation, even if that group constitutes the majority of the nation. There would have been young innocent children and unborn babies who did not deserve to be enslaved. God, being omnipotent, could easily have made every wicked individual drop down dead if he wanted while sparing the innocent ones. However he ordered these innocents to be punished as well.

Regardless of the above, slaves weren't only acquired during war. Leviticus 25:44-46 says non-Hebrew slaves could be purchased from non-Hebrews who lived among the Hebrews themselves or from non-Hebrew nations during peacetime. How is this punishing wicked nations?

Claim 10: God desired the end of slavery, but it had to be done gradually because of the social, cultural and economic dynamics at the time

Why would an omni-benevolent god tolerate one of the most evil practices ever created, because of economics or social customs? There are numerous examples in the Old testament where God killed Hebrews by the thousands because they didn't follow his instructions to the letter. It seems bizarre that he would balk at telling them to give up their slaves.

If God really desired the end of slavery, he could just end slavery (he never did). Failing that, he could make clear in the Bible that he disapproves and that we should stop it (he never did). Failing that, his earthly representation as Jesus could make it clear that he disapproves (he never did). Failing that, one of the epistle writers could make clear that he disapproves so the Bible could say at least something against slavery (no one ever did). Exodus and Leviticus have extensive lists of laws that ban all sorts of behavior, everything from murder, adultery, incest, rape, bestiality....why not slavery too?

For whose social/cultural/economic benefit did God condone slavery for anyway? The slave-owners or the slaves themselves? What could be worse than being the property of another person, being forced to labor for no wages, being forced to stay with your master, seeing your wife and children treated as cattle, etc?

 

[jeremiah1five]

QUOTE: "Why would an omni-benevolent god condone slavery?"

RESPONSE: "Ours, not to make reply; ours, not to question why; ours, but to do and die."

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

Ezekiel 18:4 (KJV)
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Romans 9:14-24 (KJV)
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

God can do whatever He wants with His creation.

It's all about ownership. God created the heaven and the earth. God created man.

As far as the Scripture is concerned - from which you take your question on slavery - God can do whatever He wants to do with His creation. So why would you question Him? All souls are His, He said. I can't claim ownership over my life. I didn't birth myself. My parents did a thing together and here I am. In a sense, they "own" me. But, you're not talking about humans, right? You're talking about Creator God.

Right, wrong, slavery, voluntary slavery, incest, all the above.

There was a time that God allowed incest, and then one day God rescinded that permission once He was satisfied the human population was in His Mind sufficient. Then, He stopped incestuous relationships and called it "sin."
You may not like this scene, but then again, it's all about ownership. Right now, the puny humans are in rebellion against God. They don't want anything to do with Him - and yet, they copy His Laws and compel other puny rebellions humans to obey their laws they claim originated in the vanity of their minds while leaning on their own understanding. These puny humans kick God out of their schools and universities, kick Him out of their political parties, kick Him out of their homes, they even kick God out of their churches and religious institutions.

Sin is what God calls sin. And the puny humans really have nothing to say, but God created these puny humans with a mouth and hands and feet. And what is the puny humans' response to the reality they have mouths and hands, and feet?
They curse God with their mouths, raise their hands and make fists and shake their fists at Him, and use their feet to walk away from Him.
Well, if God was to remove their mouths (like was done to Neo in the film "The Matrix"), cut off their hands, and shackle their feet to the hull of the sunken Titanic, a ship these puny humans said "God could not sink," do you want to know what the response will be from me, a Biblical Christian?

Nothing.

Because I know, God can do whatever He wants with what belongs to Him.

 

[turnorburn]

Why don't you ask him man to man? Jesus created you in his image..

 

[jeremiah1five]

Why don't you ask him man to man? Jesus created you in his image..

The Father created me in His image, not Jesus.
You're sending me to the wrong Person.

 

[chessman]

The bible explicitly endorses two types of slavery

Did you author these posts or did you copy someone else’s article and paste it here?

 

[Aleister66]

QUOTE: "Why would an omni-benevolent god condone slavery?"

RESPONSE: "Ours, not to make reply; ours, not to question why; ours, but to do and die."

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

Ezekiel 18:4 (KJV)
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Romans 9:14-24 (KJV)
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

God can do whatever He wants with His creation.

It's all about ownership. God created the heaven and the earth. God created man.

As far as the Scripture is concerned - from which you take your question on slavery - God can do whatever He wants to do with His creation. So why would you question Him? All souls are His, He said. I can't claim ownership over my life. I didn't birth myself. My parents did a thing together and here I am. In a sense, they "own" me. But, you're not talking about humans, right? You're talking about Creator God.

Right, wrong, slavery, voluntary slavery, incest, all the above.

There was a time that God allowed incest, and then one day God rescinded that permission once He was satisfied the human population was in His Mind sufficient. Then, He stopped incestuous relationships and called it "sin."
You may not like this scene, but then again, it's all about ownership. Right now, the puny humans are in rebellion against God. They don't want anything to do with Him - and yet, they copy His Laws and compel other puny rebellions humans to obey their laws they claim originated in the vanity of their minds while leaning on their own understanding. These puny humans kick God out of their schools and universities, kick Him out of their political parties, kick Him out of their homes, they even kick God out of their churches and religious institutions.

Sin is what God calls sin. And the puny humans really have nothing to say, but God created these puny humans with a mouth and hands and feet. And what is the puny humans' response to the reality they have mouths and hands, and feet?
They curse God with their mouths, raise their hands and make fists and shake their fists at Him, and use their feet to walk away from Him.
Well, if God was to remove their mouths (like was done to Neo in the film "The Matrix"), cut off their hands, and shackle their feet to the hull of the sunken Titanic, a ship these puny humans said "God could not sink," do you want to know what the response will be from me, a Biblical Christian?

Nothing.

Because I know, God can do whatever He wants with what belongs to Him.

Ahhh, so you believe that whatever God says is morally good, is good? If God decides tomorrow that incest is good again, would you really think so too? I really doubt any normal person would.

 

[Aleister66]

Did you author these posts or did you copy someone else’s article and paste it here?

I wrote most of it myself, at least 80%

 

[stovebolts]

Aleister66 ,
I see that you have a well written argument against our God and savior which to me, shows your intent to argue.

Romans 12:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

We are striving to be a peaceful community and if I can say this without offending you or other members, I would say that you are ignorant to many of the scriptures, as are many other Christian's including myself. Difference being you are looking for faults, while we are searching for truth.

What I understand about many of the Torah passages you posted come from Jewish commentary, which teaches discernment where you seem more interested in argument. There are subtle differences in the Hebrew that only the Jews will catch. This is your entry point into truly understanding many of the Torah passages you posted. You have much to learn.

In short, you are not teachable because you have shown no desire to be taught truth. Instead, your studies have taken you to a place hostile to God, and hostile toward others.

I wish you well.