The Bible and Slavery

“If you claim to be a good person, then the bible should embarrass you and disgust you.”

Dan Barker

In the previous blog we examined Steven Lewis’s justification for God’s jealousy in the bible. In this blog we’ll look at his justification for slavery in the bible and in the next blog we’ll explore why Lewis’s argument entirely misses the point atheists are making about God and slavery.

The Bible and Slavery

Lewis begins,

“Another prominent criticism of the God of the Bible among the atheistic literature is that of his passive permission of (or active participation in) slavery. (This)… issue is significant for believers. Does the God of the Bible condone slavery? If so, does this represent a moral failure—or even an act of evil—on the part of God?”

What atheists say,

“The spectacularly unreflective authors of the Bible had absolutely no problem with slavery whatsoever, as long as the slave owner didn’t actually beat his slave blind and toothless. That was going just too far, although beating a slave to death was perfectly fine as long as the slave survived for a day or two after the beating. Then, when the slave died, it was appropriate to feel sorry for the unfortunate slave owner because it was, he who had suffered a loss.” Michael Shermer

What the bible says,

And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. (Exodus 21:20-21).

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25)

Lewis continues,

Before considering this question, one must carefully define the terms being used, and once again, this requires a look at the context of the biblical laws involving slavery.

Context of biblical laws? Here’s what Barker has to say about that.

Barker: I think what they really mean by context is “my theology.” Their lives are devoted to their God, and naturally they rush to his defense. They want me to see God the way they do, so that I might accept his atrocities as a small part of a greater holy and righteous plan.”

Lewis continues,

The typical American is appalled at the actions of his ancestors in this regard, and, thus, when reading in the Bible where slavery was permitted in ancient Israel under the guidance and laws of God himself, the response is often shock and confusion. However, the error here is a fallacy of equivocation.

Let’s see what “fallacy of equivocation” means and if it actually applies to Lewis’s argument.

“A fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.” Texas State, Dept. of Philosophy

The TSU site gives examples for “fallacies of equivocation.” Here are two. The first one is often used by christian apologists (like Lewis) as an argument for the existence of God.

“The laws imply lawgivers. There are laws in nature. Therefore, there must be a cosmic lawgiver.”

The second one is a bit more humorous, but you’ll get the idea.

• God: “One million years to me is a second.”
• Man: “What about one million dollars, my Lord?”
• God: “A penny.”
• Man: “May my Lord give me a penny?”
• God: “No problem, just a second.”

Lewis doesn’t actually state what he’s talking about when he says, “the error here is a fallacy of equivocation.” So, we’ll have to infer that according to him the following statement is a fallacy of equivocation.

“Slavery as existed in America was bad, therefore all slavery is bad, therefore slavery in ancient Israel was bad.”

For Lewis this is flawed thinking. Let’s see if his argument can support his claim of fallacy of equivocation.

Lewis writes,

Simply speaking, slavery in the Bible is not the same as slavery in nineteenth-century America. A few distinctions are important so that one can more clearly see the full picture of what is being discussed in the Bible when it speaks of slaves.

So, according to Lewis we don’t have a “full picture of slavery.” Undoubtedly, he is going to enlighten us about the differences between modern slavery and biblical slavery.

He writes,

First, biblical slavery was more akin to indentured servitude than forced slavery. It was typically a contract entered into willingly by both slave and owner, usually for the sake of the poor in order to provide for themselves or their families.

Second, kidnapping and the forced servitude of captives were expressly forbidden as capital crimes, which would outlaw the entire nineteenth-century slave trade outright.

Third, slavery came to a natural end. A number of conditions could occur that would mandate a slaveowner to free his slaves:

Furthermore, the laws did more to protect the slaves than the slaveowners; the human dignity of the slave is always protected and preserved.

Lewis’s interpretation of biblical slavery is indeed intriguing, but is it valid? We will examine each one separately.

First, indentured servitude did indeed occur in ancient times. However, it should be noted that this option of indentured servitude (as found in the Old Testament) was not as common as Lewis would like us to believe and only applied to fellow Hebrews and certainly not to foreign slaves.

The second argument comes from Exodus 21, which says, “And he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall be put to death.” However, Lewis is doing a bit of cherry picking in this argument. He fails to quote the very next verse which says, “And he who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death.”

For the record there is a plethora of capital offenses in the Old Testament including…

• Adultery
• Working on the sabbath
• Homosexuality
• Being a wizard
• Blasphemy

By the way, it should be noted that this “kidnapping law” only applied to kidnapping other Hebrews. It certainly did not apply to taking captives from other tribes, as we see when the Israelite warriors were told to kill every man woman and boy child of the Canaanites, but they could take the virgin girls for themselves. (We’ll tackle this disturbing story in an upcoming blog.)

Third point says that there are some conditions that allowed slaves to be set free. So, what are those conditions? These examples come from Exodus 21.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve you for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; is he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.

And if a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on the account of his tooth.

Notice again that these conditions only applied to Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves became property for life and could be bequeathed to the slave owner’s children.

Lewis continues,

Furthermore, the laws did more to protect the slaves than the slaveowners; the human dignity of the slave is always protected and preserved.

An online article entitled “Dismantling the myth that ancient slavery wasn’t that bad” sheds a different light on Lewis’s assertion that the human dignity of slaves was always protected.

Because these kinds of slavery took place so long ago and weren’t based on modern racism, some people have the impression that they weren’t as harsh or violent. That impression makes room for… Christian theologians to argue that ancient slavery was actually beneficial for enslaved people.

Let’s be very clear, it was not.

Lewis continues,

Perhaps God knew that such a blanket condemnation of slavery would not be heeded, and so he chose to construct his laws more as a gradual step away from slavery and toward human dignity and equality rather than an ineffective or destructive condemnation from the start. In any case, slavery in world history cannot be blamed on God.

I’ve decided to break the above paragraph into chunks so we can evaluate each part separately.

Perhaps God knew that such a blanket condemnation of slavery would not be heeded…

This argument makes no sense. When has the God of the bible ever not given a command because it might not be heeded? God’s commands were always to be heeded or people started dying.

…and so he chose to construct his laws more as a gradual step away from slavery and toward human dignity and equality rather than an ineffective or destructive condemnation from the start.

When in the history of mankind has there ever been “human dignity and equality” for slaves? Also, is Lewis actually arguing that his God was hoping that slavery would gradually stop on its own? But as we know, it didn’t. Barker writes that we “had to wait millennia to abolish the biblically approved practice on our own, a progress that was hampered by faith in an ancient slave monger deity.”

God conveniently remains blameless.

Uninfluenced by such an argument Lewis ends his article like this,

In any case, slavery in world history cannot be blamed on God. Slavery existed long before God’s law was given to the Israelites, and it existed long after. Thus, when the Bible’s descriptions of slavery and slave laws are taken in the correct social context under which they were given, a direct contradiction in the existence of the perfectly good God of the Bible fails to materialize.

There you have it. God conveniently remains blameless. But atheists aren’t buying it. In the next blog we’ll explore why.

Coming next:

Lewis argues that biblical slavery was different from slavery in the nineteenth century. However, he neglects to address the fact that many American slave owners were devout christians who used scripture to support slavery. We’ll explore the writings of a Baptist pastor named Richard Furman who wrote a letter to the Governor of South Carolina arguing that slavery was “in accordance with the designs of Divine Providence.”

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum