THE OLD TESTAMENT SAYS SLAVERY IS NOT ONLY ALLOWED BUT COMMANDED BY GOD
Slavery is exploitation. You look for your wage and you
treat your slave as if they are not worth a wage. Slavery will
lead to open and often hidden abuses. The slave is vulnerable.
The Bible God does not stop there. He allows slaves to be
abused and battered with impunity. You may praise God for
ruling that if a master knocks the slave's tooth out the slave is to
be freed. But the slave having no freedom was terrible but
getting freedom was terrible too. The slave was still
considered to be dirt. And the slave was often compelled to
give themselves to somebody else just to avoid starving.
Let those unscholarly types who surmise that the Bible Law never countenanced slavery
and that the word for servant is mistranslated as slave read Leviticus 25:39-46.
“If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not
compel him to serve as a bond-man (a slave not eligible for redemption), But as
a hired servant and as a temporary resident he shall be with you; he shall serve
you till the Year of Jubilee, And then he shall depart from you, he and his
children with him, and shall go back to his own family and return to the
possession of his fathers. For the Israelites are My servants; I brought them
out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondmen. You shall not rule
over him with harshness, but you shall [reverently] fear your God. As for your
bond men and your bond-maids whom you may have, they shall be from the nations
round about you, of whom you may buy bondmen and bond-maids. Moreover, of the
children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy and of
their families that are with you which they have begotten in your land, and they
shall be your possession. And you shall make them an inheritance for your
children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you take your
bondmen always, but over your brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one
over another with harshness.”
Verses 47-48 are fascinating, “and if a sojourner or stranger with you becomes
rich and your Israelite brother becomes poor beside him and sells himself to the
stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger’s family, After he
is sold he may be redeemed. One of his brethren may redeem him.”
The chapter would tell us not to treat bondmen and bond-maids with harshness if
we were forbidden to abuse them. But it just mentions that Israelites should not
be treated with harshness. It was so easy to write that neither servants or
slaves should be harshly treated. The permission to abuse bondsmen and
bond-maids from other races is clearly there.
Some say that the Law only allows slavery because the realities for the time
forced its use. There was no way to be declared bankrupt so you had to sell
yourself into slavery. If you had to pay back what you stole when you were a
thief you got enslaved if there was no other way to make restitution (Exodus
22:3). But why couldn't God keep it simple and just let the person work for
nothing without this idea of selling yourself?
Abraham was thanked by the Lord for being blameless though he owned slaves and
kept concubines (Genesis 18:19; Ecclesiastes 44:19). God approved of all this
even though Abraham knew he was wrong – he could not have been that naive. He
would not have liked to have been a slave.
The Law does not say that a man who hits another man with a stone to kill him
should get off in case the victim died of shock or heart failure. When people
who are punished for murder it is often because it is most likely that they
committed it. It is often impossible to prove it one hundred percent. And yet
here it is pretended that the cruel master is not the most likely cause of
death. The law condoning the beating contradicts the law that all punishments
have to be carried out under the consent of the administrators of the law
(Leviticus 19:18). This all proves that slavery was not merely permitted by God
but positively endorsed for there was no excuse for letting a man hit his
slaves. The Christians lie when they say that God hates slavery but permits it
for the people are so stubborn. If he hated it he would have mitigated it.
A man was allowed by God to beat his slave to death if the slave survived for
a day or two then he went unpunished see Exodus 21:20,21. There was
no compassion for the slave who suffered in agony for a week or a
month.
Christians try to defend this by saying that the master could not be punished as
it could not be proved that the beating caused the death. That would be
laughable if it were not so cruel for the beating would have to play a part in
it. It would be too much of a coincidence for the slave to die of something
else.
The text says that the master must not be punished for the slave is his master’s property. But nobody is anybody’s property. Some say that God is not
being callous here but is merely stating a fact. So with this view God does not
really see the slave as anybody’s property but from the viewpoint of the system
the slave is the master’s property practically speaking. But God is putting the
fact that the slave is treated by society as property before the fact that the
slave is his own property and nobody else’s. God definitely thinks that
the master is not entitled to pay any penalty for the slave is dead and it is
punishment enough for the master to lose his slave! The master should still be
punished and to say he shouldn’t is to say that the slave is just a thing.
The slave murderer should get some kind of punishment for what he did even if it
is not severe just in case he did cause the slave’s death.
The idea that the master needs the slave and has lost him and so cannot be
punished is no excuse. If that were true God would have made it clear that he
meant this rule only for hard-up masters who had perhaps one slave. But even
then letting the master off wouldn’t be right. It is like saying that murderer
loses his reputation and this is sufficient punishment for him.
What if the slave was beaten by the master's wife? Did
women not own slaves too? The master could clearly get away
with it by saying his wife did it.
The punishment due to the master was not to be the death penalty which was the
price for killing free people (Leviticus 24:18). Nowhere does the Law say that
the killer of a slave is to be executed. If God had meant the death penalty he
would have said so for laws have to be clear. The Law often treats slaves as
half-persons – or dirt to be frank.
God must want us to stop accusing poisoners of murder or punishing them if they
killed their victims slowly!
If a man let an animal he knew was vicious have the freedom to gore people to
death he had to be put to death if it killed a free person but not if it killed
a slave (Exodus 21:28-32). This certainly implies that a slave’s life is not as
precious as that of a free person just because of his status in society. This is
snobbery at its worst.
Incidentally, when a man could get away with killing his slave if the slave
lingers on a while after the attack and not with letting his animal kill a free
person one sees that the basis of the first rule was the alleged inferiority of
slaves.
God said that if the slave wishes to be free he must leave his wife and children
if the master gave him the woman. The woman and children are the master’s
property. This is a trick to force slaves in such situations to stay enslaved.
Marriage is seen as less important than the evil slave master. This denigrates
the woman’s love and puts a whitewashed crafty master first. The master must be
rich when he could keep all these people so God should tell him to let the
family go for he can pay workers. God just likes people to be trampled on. This
was going too far even if slavery should have been morally permissible.
If a man lay with a betrothed slave woman he had to make an atonement sacrifice
of a ram but if she had been free both would have been brutally stoned to death
(Leviticus 19:20-22; 20:10). This is really just saying that the slave woman is
no better than an animal. The harsh penalty for a free woman implies that she is
too good to let herself be degraded. Many reckon that the Bible seems to think
that the slave woman could not be killed for she is somebody’s property and she
is needed. But in that case, why is the man spared and why is there no law that
if the slave lady is not needed or soon to be freed then she can be executed as
soon as possible? If he had had sex with a free woman he would have died for it.
If she could not be executed for she was property then God would have said that
only poor men’s slaves could be spared. What use was a slave who would have sex
to any impoverished master who needed her to avoid pregnancy for the sake of
work? Some say the mercy was shown to her for she had a hard enough time. But
lots of the free women had as bad or worse times and they were executed. The
implication is that a slave is not a real human being but a possession to the
extent that to corrupt them was no big deal.
The Hebrews gave their own countrymen slaves an easier time than slaves bought
from other nations. Haley says that Leviticus 25:39-46 are texts which “De Wette
seems to think, prohibit the purchase of a Hebrew slave; they merely provide
that the service of such should be more lenient than that of a stranger. Even a
foreigner might buy a Hebrew slave, but always with liberty of redemption. A
gentile slave could be held for life-long service” (page 303, Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible). All things could have been equal. This demonstrates
the ugly racism of the Bible for they should have been. It also proves that
slavery was not something horrible that God was forced to tolerate when he made
it worse for non-Hebrews. He would have made it as harmless as possible if he
hated it.
In Exodus 21 the Lord plainly approves of slavery. He decrees that if a Hebrew
slave wants to stay with his owner though he has the right or leave him when he
has worked six years if he wants to that the owner must pierce his ear with an
awl at the door and he will be his property forever. He should not be his
master’s property forever but for as long as he wants. It is bad enough to make
a slave of a person who consents but worse to let that person rule out any hope
of freedom in the future. When God goes so far it shows how deeply he approves
of slavery. And it mattered little to God that the piercing could cause
infection and death in those dangerous times.
In Exodus 21, if a man cannot make restitution for stealing then he is to be
sold into slavery by the person he owes restitution to. This proves that God
approves of slavery because he could have laid it down that the man work for
nothing to repay instead. Then, in a sense he is working for something but he is
not sold. Then, in a sense he is working for something but he is not sold. Even
if slavery were allowable this recommendation of selling him would still be
wicked and cruel. It crosses the boundary of semi-decency altogether.
One of Christianity's lies is that the Bible does not give approbation but mere
toleration for slavery for the people wouldn’t have obeyed God if he asked them
to give it up. They use a similar argument about God's refusing to censure
polygamy (Deuteronomy 21:15) and divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) – and according to
them the argument was inspired by Jesus (Mark 10:5). It is approval for when God
upset the Israelites so much by giving them orders that they didn’t want to hear
(Numbers 14) he could have gone another bit to forbid slavery and polygamy and
divorce. It is stupid to say that God knew what would happen if he issued laws
against them. Even God does not know what will happen in a future that won’t
happen. If he had he might have been pleasantly surprised. God was all for
slavery and polygamy. If God had been against slavery he would not have made the
edict that masters can keep slaves forever but would have put time restriction
on slavery across the board. The Law claims that all its precepts are just which
they would not be even if they were the best under the circumstances for then
the laws would be unjust in themselves. How could they be just if they were just
enacted for handiness? The idea that God had to put up with slavery is
unbiblical and therefore objectionable. It is speculation for Jesus said that
God allowed divorce because the people were obstinate but did not hint that it
was the same with anything else and to interpret the Bible by speculation is to
add to the Bible and pervert the word of God. When God did not forbid polygamy
and condemned adultery the implication is that polygamous marriage is not
adultery (page 123, The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties). If it is not
adultery it must be good.
If the people were determined not to abolish slavery there was no need for God
to enact laws that fed this attitude. He could have explained why he allowed
slaves and asked them to be open to slowly phasing it out.
It is nonsense to claim that the Old Testament and New Testament permitted
slavery for selfish men were going to fester it even if it were absolutely
banned. Deuteronomy 20 disproves the claim for in it God says that the men of
heathen cities are to be put to death but their women and children should be
captured and used as slaves. He knew that people could give slaves some tiny
wage rather than do without slaves and yet he did not command that they be paid.
If slavery was wrong and men were stubborn he would have reached this compromise
so the Bible says that slavery is right. No hostels were set up where abused
slaves could take refuge in.
It is thought that God did not like Hebrews becoming slaves though he condoned
it when a Hebrew had to agree to let himself be sold by his family. Then why
didn’t he have a charity set up so that there would have been no need for that?
He did command that alms should be given so there is no excuse for him.
These regulations regarding slavery were all made at a time when Israel was
wandering through the desert. They were fed by God all the time (page 130,
ibid). There were two million of them to do their own work so the doctrine that
God as to allow them to keep slaves for he had no choice is ridiculous. They
only had slaves for their own laziness and greed. Treating people like animals
for sale made money. God could have told them that they should have soldiers
instead of slaves for the wilderness was dangerous. Slavery made Israel
wealthier and therefore the priesthood benefited from having wealthy
congregations.
Any religion that reveres and divinises a scripture that tells it to exploit
people as slaves could very well turn everybody it hates into a slave if it took
over the country and could get away with it. It has nothing but itself to blame
for giving us this impression.
BOOKS CONSULTED
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania,
undated
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York,
1985
CHRIST AND PROTEST, Harry Tennant, Christadelphian Publishing Office,
Birmingham, undated
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED, Editor John Warwick Montgomery, Bethany
Fellowship, Minnesota, 1973
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
JESUS AND THE FOUR GOSPELS, John Drane, Lion Books, Herts, 1984
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Foundation, Tennessee,
1993
THE HOLY BIBLE NEW AMERICAN VERSION, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine,
Washington DC, 1970
THE JESUS EVENT, Martin R Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Kittel Gerhard and Friedrich
Gerhard, Eerdman’s Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976
THE UNAUTHORISED VERSION. Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
WHEN CRITICS ASK, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois,1992
