Thinking Christian

1. nashenvi wrote:

   June 8, 2011 at 9:13 am   Link

   Tom,
   Great article! One quick question. You wrote: “It was for a limited period, until the year of Jubilee every seven years, after which release was to be complete and final, unless the slave (servant) preferred to stay.”
   But wasn’t the year of Jubilee every 49 years, not every seven?

   -Neil
2. Bill R. wrote:

   June 8, 2011 at 10:29 am   Link

   I think you’re right, Neil. I seem to remember that “Jubilee” refers to the 50th year after each 49 year period — the year in which all land transactions were voided and land allotments reverted to their original owners as laid out in the book of Joshua. But slaves were set free every 7 years, even though it wasn’t technically called Jubilee.

   All in all, great article, Tom! I really appreciated seeing all the arguments collected in one place.
3. nashenvi wrote:

   June 8, 2011 at 10:45 am   Link

   Bill R,
   “But slaves were set free every 7 years, even though it wasn’t technically called Jubilee.” Could you provide a reference for that?

   Providentially, an atheist friend of mine emailed me just a few days ago asking why the Bible supports slavery. If “slaves” were released every seven years, this is a crucial point to make, aside from all the other issues about cultural context, indentured servitude vs. chattel slavery, allowing vs. supporting, etc…

   -Neil
4. Bill R. wrote:

   June 8, 2011 at 1:12 pm   Link

   Neil,

   I had to do a quick search, but I found two sources: Exodus 21:2-6

   2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

   and Deuteronomy 15:12-18

   12 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. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. 16 But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant. 18 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.

   Just in these verses, we see that the LORD decreed that i) slaves could only serve for a limited time, and ii) masters were bound by their relationship to the LORD to care for their slaves and slaves’ families, even upon freeing them.

   Incidentally, the practice of the master piercing the ear of the slave who wants to stay with him for life is echoed beautifully by David in Psalm 40:6a “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced”. It’s such a poignant way of saying that real sacrifice and offering that God desires is our recognition that we are better off with Him than on our own, and our willingness to serve him, faithfully and unconditionally, for life. I just love that!
5. Bill R. wrote:

   June 9, 2011 at 10:43 am   Link

   Tom, your article on slavery reminded me of something I wrote a couple years ago. Here is an excerpt:

   Still, the question lingers: “Why didn’t God explicitly forbid slavery in the law, if He saw how corrupt it would become?” In other words, even if God meant well on the issue of slavery, it seems to us like He was terribly ineffective at getting rid of it. We may be tempted to think “Hey! We humans managed to abolish slavery on our own, when God failed to do so in the Bible, so why should we take our cues from Him when it comes to moral issues?” However, judging the relative effectiveness of God and humans (to say nothing of God working through humans) on this issue requires a closer look, and we find that God is way ahead of the game. God has realized from the beginning that a legal prohibition against slavery would do little to solve the underlying problem of slavery: that is, fallen humans abusing their authority over the weak. Even if it were illegal to own a slave, people would still find ways to make others do backbreaking work with little-to-no say in the matter, little-to-no hope of freedom, and little-to-no compensation for their labor. This principle was sadly demonstrated in America after the civil war: the legal abolition of slavery was a very righteous thing, but for more than a century afterwards, White people continued to exercise unjust authority over Black people, abusing them as badly as before, albeit through less direct, more institutional means. Even today, authority in general is still open to legal abuse. Though there are many kind employers, the stereotypical American workplace (to say nothing of sweatshops in the developing world) is a place of oppression and dehumanization dressed up in professionalism.

   To be sure, God hates slavery in all its forms and wants it gone from this earth, but He realizes that the substance of slavery is still very much alive today and that truly abolishing it requires more than just legislation. In our age, we tend to think that if we can just elect the right leaders and enact the right policies, we can eradicate every social ill from the top down. But God’s ways are different from our ways. While God absolutely delighted (and participated) in the work of the abolitionists, and while He expects and equips us to protect the weak against abuse by the strong, God has always known that only a change in people’s hearts will address the root of the problem. That’s why He sent a Savior instead of a political leader, and that’s why social justice is not possible without salvation. Our job is to bring God’s good news to politics, economics, society, culture, etc., but our work proceeds from the bottom up and begins with the completed work of Jesus Christ that transforms our fallen humanity.
6. Tom Gilson wrote:

   June 9, 2011 at 3:55 pm   Link

   Good thoughts, Bill, thanks.

   Neil, my editor at BreakPoint graciously agreed to correct that error. I’m glad you brought it to my attention.
7. G. Rodrigues wrote:

   June 13, 2011 at 11:03 am   Link

   On hearing the new atheists drivel and historically ludicrous tosh one would think that Democritus or Lucrecius were ardent abolitionists, or that these atheist free-thinkers, if transplanted to the cultural milieu of ancient Israel or southern America, would auto-magically become abolitionists just by dint of being atheists. If it is true that many have abused the Bible to justify slavery, it is equally true that the arguments in favour of abolition are profoundly suffused with Christian principles. In fact, they were understandable and persuasive precisely because they appealed to a common shared religious heritage: Christianity, broadly conceived, and the Bible. Unprovable as such statements are, I am convinced that if the abolitionists were all atheists *and* appealed to an atheist worldview, we would still have slavery in western society.

   One can imagine the following dialogue between an atheist abolitionist (Sam Harris) and a slaver (Peter Singer):

   Singer: You have been making a lot of noise and disturbing the good folks of our community. Care to explain yourself?
   Harris: Slavery is objectively wrong, Singer.
   Singer: Says who?
   Harris: Huh… it is objectively wrong. Brain-scans show that the well-being of the slavers is being harmed.
   Singer: Brain-scans of all our community members show that *their* well-being is augmented with slavery.
   Harris: Huh… but we should try to maximize the well-being of the community as a whole.
   Singer: Harris, our community is 5000 members, there are 100 slaves. Of course we are maximizing the well-being of the community.
   Harris: Huh… but we are all the product of purposeless, blind chance and therefore are equal. We should not subject our equals to such unfair treatment.
   Singer: Unfair treatment? What do you mean? The slaves are just a bunch of molecules bundled together with certain capabilities; it stands to reason that we can use them to augment the well-being of the community as a whole. And who says we are equal? I have by me the DNA profiles of the slaves and we are definitely *not* equal. In fact, I also have your DNA profile, and *you* are *not* equal to anybody else…
   Harris: But…
   Singer: no buts. You have been making a lot of fuss, disturbing the well-being of the whole community for your own well-being and this is not acceptable. You are to be a slave from now on.
   Harris: But… (is carried away to work as a slave).

Comments are disabled for this post