Those who want to denigrate the
Bible argue that its morality is sub-standard. Just recently, one young man
angrily charged that the institutional of biblical slavery was all that he
needed to reject the Bible. However, I wondered whether he really took the time
to try to understand this institution.
Biblical slavery was never
conceived or practiced in a racial way, as had been practiced in the USA and in
other nations. Actually, Biblical slavery (or servanthood) was quite humane
compared to our prisons.
For one thing, kidnapping of
foreign peoples in order to enslave was strictly forbidden:
· "Anyone
who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught
must be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)
The NT also forbids kidnapping for the purpose of slavery (1 Timothy
1:10). Instead, biblical slavery had been instituted to address the
problem of unpaid debts and criminality:
·
“A thief must certainly make restitution, but if
he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.” (Exodus 22:3)
This practice was regarded as
just, far more just than simple imprisonment or having your hand cut off.
Although slavery was degrading, it was also a humane institution:
·
“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. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply
him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to
him as the Lord your God has blessed you.” (Deut. 15:12-14)
In many instances the Israelites
could be redeemed by their family members (Leviticus 25:48). Even if the family
wouldn’t or couldn’t redeem them, they were to be released after six years of
labor.
The institution of biblical
slavery also provided legal protections for the slave:
·
"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant
in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for
the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must
let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.” (Exodus 21:26-27)
The slave or servant was even to
be treated almost like family. They were to travel together to Jerusalem to
rejoice by eating their offerings. Servants/slaves were considered part of the
household:
·
Deuteronomy 12:7, 11-12 “And there [at the
Temple] you shall eat before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and
your HOUSEHOLDS, in all that you undertake, in which the LORD your God has
blessed you…then to the place that the LORD your God will choose, to make his
name dwell there, there you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt
offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you
present, and all your finest vow offerings that you vow to the LORD…And you
shall rejoice before the LORD your God, you and your sons and your daughters,
your MALE SERVANTS AND YOUR FEMALE SERVANTS, and the Levite that is within your
towns, since he has no portion or inheritance with you. (Also Deut. 16:11-15;
26:11)
Slavery also addressed the problem of what to do with a defeated enemy.
While the ancient practice entailed the extermination of the males and the
sexual abuse of the females, the Bible prohibited this:
·
“When you go to war against your enemies and the
Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you
notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may
take her as your wife…If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she
wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have
dishonored her.” (Deut. 21:10-11, 14)
Biblical slavery would not divide families, as had been the practice
of racial slavery:
·
When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six
years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in
single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go
out with him. (Exodus 21:2-3)
The secularist will protest – “Well, this only applies to the
Hebrew slave.” Although this is true, a slave could always become an Israelite and partake in all of the rights extended to them.
Mosaic Law was inclusive. God
commanded Abraham that even those he bought as slaves were to be circumcised,
thereby erasing any possible class or racial distinction within his
“household”:
·
“This is my covenant with you [Abraham] and your
descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall
be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the
covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you
who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your
household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your
offspring.” (Genesis 17:10-12)
Israel was to be a model of
inclusiveness. All could and should come to God; all were to be under the
covenant of God, and none were ever turned away:
·
“Any slave you have bought may eat of [the
Passover] after you have circumcised him…An alien living among you who wants to
celebrate the LORD'S Passover must have all the males in his household
circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised
male may eat of it. The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien
living among you." (Exodus 12:44-49)
Even the slave could choose circumcision
and receive full inclusion as an Israelite. It had been God’s intention that
Israel would be the model of inclusion, and circumcision was the ticket in.
Race, education, national origin would present no obstacle. Instead, God’s
intention was that all would be under the same law.
There was no indication of any
racial superiority in any of Israel’s legislation. Instead, Israel was always
reminded that they had been slaves so that they would be gracious to their
slaves and that a single egalitarian set of laws would suffice for all –
whether Jewish or not. Israel was also to be a model society for the
surrounding nations:
·
“See, I [Moses] 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. 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? 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. 4:5-8)
Predictably, secularism now wants
to claim the mantle of the “protector of human rights.” This certainly wasn’t
the case under secular communism and hasn’t been the case historically. “Secularism does not liberate,” according to
Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi. He quotes historian Rodney Stark to support
his claim:
·
A virtual Who’s Who of “Enlightenment” figures
fully accepted slavery…It was not philosophers or secular intellectuals who
assembled the moral indictment of slavery, but the very people they held in
such contempt: men and women having intense Christian faith, who opposed
slavery because it was sin…The larger point is that abolitionists, whether
popes or evangelists, spoke almost exclusively in the language of Christian
faith…Although many Southern clergy [in America] proposed theological defenses
of slavery, pro-slavery rhetoric was overwhelmingly secular – references were
made to “liberty” and “states’ rights,” not to “sin” or “salvation.” (The Book that Made your World, 114)
There were compelling reasons why
“Biblical Theology abolished slavery.” Unbiblical slavery was simply
unbiblical, as Mangalwadi affirms:
·
[Christians] considered slavery to be sinful.
Slavery means toil, and the Bible said toil was a consequence of sin. God loved
sinners enough to send his son to take their sin upon Himself. The curse of sin
was nailed upon the cross. (114)
Biblical slavery differs from
other forms of slavery as the punishment of the innocent differs from the punishment
of the guilty. Dinesh D’Souza adds:
·
Christians were the first group in history to
start an anti-slavery movement. The movement started in late eighteenth century
in Britain…In England, William Wilberforce spear-headed a campaign that began
with almost no support and was driven entirely by his Christian
convictions…Pressed by religious groups at home, England took the lead in repressing
the slave trade abroad. (What’s So Great
About Christianity, 73)
·
The Second Great Awakening, which started in the
early 19th century and coursed through New England and New York and
then through the interior of the country, left in its wake the temperance
movement, the movement of women’s suffrage, and most important, the
abolitionist movement. (75)
The secularist also charges that the NT condones even non-biblical
slavery. This is not true. However, the NT does counsel the Christian slave
to be faithful to his “master,” as he should be to any employer or even prison
guard. This is because we are commanded to show love and kindness to all.
No comments:
Post a Comment