Dan Barker<\/strong><\/p>\n In the previous blog<\/a> we examined Steven Lewis\u2019s justification for God\u2019s jealousy in the bible. In this blog we\u2019ll look at his justification for slavery in the bible and in the next blog we\u2019ll explore why Lewis\u2019s argument entirely misses the point atheists are making about God and slavery.<\/p>\n “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)\u2026 issue is signi\ufb01cant for believers. Does the God of the Bible condone slavery? If so, does this represent a moral failure\u2014or even an act of evil\u2014on the part of God?”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cThe spectacularly unre\ufb02ective authors of the Bible had absolutely no problem with slavery whatsoever, as long as the slave owner didn\u2019t actually beat his slave blind and toothless. That was going just too far, although beating a slave to death was perfectly \ufb01ne 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.\u201d<\/em> Michael Shermer<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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<\/u>. (Exodus 21:20-21).<\/p>\n 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,<\/u> but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lewis continues,<\/p>\n Before considering this question, one must carefully de\ufb01ne the terms being used, and once again<\/u>, this requires a look at the context of the biblical laws<\/u> involving slavery.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Context of biblical laws? Here\u2019s what Barker has to say about that.<\/p>\n Barker: I think what they really mean by context<\/u> is \u201cmy theology.\u201d 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lewis continues,<\/p>\n 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<\/u>.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s see what \u201cfallacy of equivocation<\/em>\u201d means and if it actually applies to Lewis\u2019s argument.<\/p>\n \u201cA 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.<\/em>\u201d Texas State, Dept. of Philosophy<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The TSU site gives examples for \u201cfallacies of equivocation.\u201d Here are two. The first one is often used by christian apologists (like Lewis) as an argument for the existence of God.<\/p>\n The second one is a bit more humorous, but you\u2019ll get the idea.<\/p>\n Lewis doesn\u2019t actually state what he\u2019s talking about when he says, \u201cthe error here is a fallacy of equivocation.\u201d So, we\u2019ll have to infer that according to him the following statement is a fallacy of equivocation.<\/p>\n \u201cSlavery as existed in America was bad, therefore all slavery is bad, therefore slavery in ancient Israel was bad.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n For Lewis this is flawed thinking. Let\u2019s see if his argument can support his claim of fallacy of equivocation.<\/p>\n Lewis writes,<\/p>\n Simply speaking, slavery in the Bible is not the same as slavery in nineteenth-century America.<\/u> 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.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, according to Lewis we don\u2019t have a \u201cfull picture of slavery.\u201d Undoubtedly, he is going to enlighten us about the differences between modern slavery and biblical slavery.<\/p>\n He writes,<\/p>\n 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<\/u>, usually for the sake of the poor in order to provide for themselves or their families.<\/em><\/p>\n Second, kidnapping and the forced servitude of captives were expressly forbidden<\/u> as capital crimes, which would outlaw the entire nineteenth-century slave trade outright.<\/em><\/p>\n Third, slavery came to a natural end<\/u>. A number of conditions could occur that would mandate a slaveowner to free his slaves:<\/em><\/p>\n Furthermore, the laws did more to protect the slaves<\/u> than the slaveowners; the human dignity of the slave is always protected and preserved<\/u>.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lewis\u2019s interpretation of biblical slavery is indeed intriguing, but is it valid? We will examine each one separately.<\/p>\n First, indentured servitude\u00a0did 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.<\/p>\n The second argument comes from Exodus 21, which says, \u201cAnd he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall be put to death.<\/em>\u201d However, Lewis is doing a bit of cherry picking in this argument. He fails to quote the very next verse which says, \u201cAnd he who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n For the record there is a plethora of capital offenses in the Old Testament including…<\/p>\n By the way, it should be noted that this \u201ckidnapping law\u201d 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\u2019ll tackle this disturbing story in an upcoming blog.)<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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\u2019s children.<\/p>\n Lewis continues,<\/p>\n Furthermore, the laws did more to protect the slaves<\/u> than the slaveowners; the human dignity of the slave is always protected and preserved<\/u>.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n An online article entitled \u201cDismantling the myth that ancient slavery wasn\u2019t that bad<\/a>\u201d sheds a different light on Lewis\u2019s assertion that the human dignity of slaves was always protected.<\/p>\n Because these kinds of slavery took place so long ago and weren\u2019t based on modern racism, some people have the impression that\u00a0they weren\u2019t as harsh or violent. That impression makes room for\u2026 Christian theologians to argue that\u00a0ancient slavery was actually beneficial\u00a0for enslaved people.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s be very clear, it was not.<\/p>\n Lewis continues,<\/p>\n 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. <\/u><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ve decided to break the above paragraph into chunks so we can evaluate each part separately.<\/p>\n Perhaps God knew that such a blanket condemnation of slavery would not be heeded\u2026<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This argument makes no sense. When has the God of the bible ever not<\/strong> given a command because it might not be heeded? God\u2019s commands were always to be heeded or people started dying.<\/p>\n \u2026and so he chose to construct his laws more as a gradual step away from slavery and toward human dignity and equality<\/u> rather than an ineffective or destructive condemnation from the start.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n When in the history of mankind has there ever been \u201chuman dignity and equality\u201d for slaves? Also, is Lewis actually arguing that his God was hoping<\/em> that slavery would gradually stop on its own? But as we know, it didn\u2019t. Barker writes that we \u201chad 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<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Uninfluenced by such an argument Lewis ends his article like this,<\/p>\n In any case, slavery in world history cannot be blamed on God. Slavery existed long before God\u2019s law was given to the Israelites<\/u>, and it existed long after. Thus, when the Bible\u2019s descriptions of slavery and slave laws are taken in the<\/u> correct social context<\/u> under which they were given, a direct contradiction in the existence of the perfectly good God of the Bible fails to materialize.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n There you have it. God conveniently remains blameless. But atheists aren’t buying it. In the next blog we’ll explore why.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cin accordance with the designs of Divine Providence.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Apr. 16, 2024<\/b><\/p>\n Dale Crum<\/em><\/p>\n <Previous Post<\/a> \/ Next Post ><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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\u2019s justification for God\u2019s jealousy in the bible. In this blog we\u2019ll look at his justification for slavery in the bible and in the next […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","WB4WB4WP_MODE":"","WB4WP_PAGE_SCRIPTS":"","WB4WP_PAGE_STYLES":"","WB4WP_PAGE_FONTS":"","WB4WP_PAGE_HEADER":"","WB4WP_PAGE_FOOTER":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[26,35,16,25,18,6,33,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atheism","category-biblical-slavery","category-christianity","category-dale-crum","category-deconversion","category-evangelicals","category-immoral-god","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Bible and Slavery<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Lewis begins,<\/h4>\n
What atheists say,<\/h4>\n
What the bible says,<\/h4>\n
“The laws imply lawgivers. There are laws in nature. Therefore, there must be a cosmic lawgiver<\/em>.”<\/h4>\n
\n
\n
God conveniently remains blameless.<\/h4>\n
Coming next:<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/mount-toll-productions.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Mt.-Toll-Productions-copy.jpg?resize=229%2C252&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nFrom Where I Stand<\/em><\/h4>\n