Support for slavery in the Bible

Remove all ads!

As requested, here are some fun links in the bible supporting slavery.

The "just and righteous" Noah (Gen.6:9, 7:1) plants a vineyard, gets drunk, and lies around naked in his tent. His son, Ham, happens to see his father in this condition. When Noah sobers up and hears "what his young son had done unto him" (what did he do besides look at him?), he curses not Ham, who "saw the nakedness of his father," but Ham's son, Canaan. "A servant of servants shall he [Canaan] be unto his brethren." This is a typical case of biblical justice, and is one of many Bible passages that have been used to justify slavery.

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. ... And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Gen.9:20-25
God tells Abram that all males must be circumcised, even those whom Abram had bought with money.

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised. Gen.17:12-13
And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money ... and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin. Gen.17:23

And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised. Gen.17:27

Rules for buying and keeping slaves

But every man's servant that is bought for money.... Ex.12:44
In the Bible, slaves (servants in the KJV) are the rightful property of slave-owners; they are his possessions -- like an ox or an ass

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant.... Ex.20:17
God sets down the rules regarding Hebrew slaves. You can buy one, but you must set him free on the seventh year. But if you have "given" him a wife and she bears children, then you get to keep the wife and kids. If he refuses to leave his family when his seven years are up, then bore a hole though his ear and keep him forever. (That sounds fair!)

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6
How to sell your daughter -- and what to do if she fails to please her new master.

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master.... Ex.21:7-8
Slavery is approved by God, and those who steal slaves must be killed.

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Ex.21:16
It's OK with God if you slowly beat your slaves to death. After all, they are your money.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Ex.21:20-21

It's okay to beat your slaves; even if they die you won't be punished, just as long as they survive a day or two after the beating (see Ex.21:20-21). But avoid excessive damage to their eyes or teeth. Otherwise you may have to set them free. Oh well, it's a heck of a lot better than what would happen to you if you did it to a non-slave. (See verses 21:24-25)

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. Ex.21:26-27

If a thief is caught and is too poor to make a complete restitution, then he is to be sold to pay for his theft.

If a thief ... have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Ex.22:2-3
It must be OK to buy slaves; even priests do it.

If the priest buy any soul with his money.... Lev.22:11
God's instructions for buying your brother for a slave.

And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee.... Lev.25:39
God tells the Israelites to make slaves out of their neighbors. The "heathens" and "strangers" are to be their possessions forever.

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. Lev.25:44-46

New Testament

Paul, who aproves of slavery, orders slaves "honor their masters" and to obey their them "in all things as unto Christ."

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ. Eph.6:5

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Col.3:22

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 1 Tim.6:1

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. Titus 2:10-11

Peter says that all slaves should "be subject to [their] masters with all fear," to the bad and cruel as well as the "good and gentle."

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 1 Pet.2:18

So I admit to being wrong ( I think, still looking for the section I'm thinking of) about Jesus said it. Obviously the bible makes no mention of it though.

 

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

This passage is Jesus talking about a slave and he obviously does not condemn it. In fact the bible has many rules on how to treat slaves. Big surprised its been used as justification for slaverly for over the past 2000 years including most recenly here in America.

 

I wouldn't say that the Bible supports slavery at all. Although it is not condemned, it is contextual to the time. The people in the cultures Judaism was created from all had slavery, and the Bible was written in the way it was because slavery was common. What was encouraged by the time of the New Testament was better treatment for the slaves - slave-owners were encouraged not to work them too hard and such.

 

Oh, so some of the things said in the bible only apply back then? So, maybe not all of the commandments still apply? Either slavery is right or it is wrong. Christianity changed the whole world, for good and bad. They had a chance to condemn something and they didn't and since they talked a fair bit about it, they obviously supported it.

 

To be honest, you don't need a Holy Book to tell you that murdering is wrong. Anyway, if a religion suddenly declared that a practice that had gone on for so long was wrong, they would get far fewer converts. Cynical though it is, it's true. Jesus didn't say slavery was wrong because if he preached that, it would be seen as an anti-Roman message, and he could be accused of treason. That wouldn't have helped his message. In fact, from the Bible, it can be seen that Jesus tried to avoid getting killed for as long as possible. Hence the parables.

I really hope that makes sense - I'm quite tired at the moment. And I do tend to waffle.

 

Ummm, the romans did kill Jesus. And if what you said is true, how could anyone accept Jesus as the son of God? Thats a pretty ***tty religious figure that supports something because it would be unpopular. Might as well have been a politician.

 

It's not that he doesn't want to be unpopular - he just wanted to complete his mission before the time came to die. Jesus knew that for the New Covenant to come about, his blood would have to seal it. But this is of far less worth if he doesn't teach people about salvation. Slavery is temporary - salvation lasts forever.

 

LOL, that is one of the best rationalizations I have ever heard. Too bad thousands if not millions died under slavery for Jesus's "convienance". Personally, I'd rather Jesus support slavery than not speak about it because it would make waves. Your Jesus scares me.

 

It's a frightening rationalization though. Let's look at a few other things which are "temporary" and thus comparitively insignifigant when weighed against "salvation":


Child rape

Torture

Cannabalism

Necrophelia

and so on...

The above is admittedly a bit straw mannish of me since I picked the most horrifying examples of abhorent behavior I could think of but still...

I mean let's take a hypothetical here:

A man breaks into an elderly woman's home and steals her rent money. He uses that money to buy a bus ticket to Florida and some food.
The woman, having beenlate before with her rent due to medical expenses incurred, is evicted by her landlord and lives out the remainder of her life as a homeless person until she dies, miserable, of pneumonia.
The thief ends up meeting a minister in Florida and decides to accept Christ as his savior.

Now IF there were a heaven then MAYBE both the thief and the woman are there enjoying eternal salvation and all and laughing about the whole thing. But all that says is that THIS life is unimportant in the grand scheme of things and we should not worry much about criminals and injustice because life doesn't REALLY begin until after we die.
Now I know some will argue that this life is important as a sort of "staging area" for where we will be in eternity(do bad here, have a sucky eternity) but this begs the question of why God would put us here in the first place to go through all this crap when he really wants us up there with him? Why place a ton of ill-equipped for decision-making individuals in a hostile environment, watch them do as you knmew they would and then punish or withold salvation from them for eternity?

 

Oh, come ON. Get a grip, people. The Bible talks about slavery instead of wage-earners for the same reason it gives rules about kingship instead of representative democracy. The Bible isn't some utopian treatise - it deals with real people in real situations.

There's a great scene in the musical "1776". The South has just refused to approve the Declaration of Independence because Thomas Jefferson includes an anti-slavery passage. John Adams (my hero!) is up in arms, refusing to remove the offending passage. But Benjamin Franklin rebukes him - "These people are Americans too, John! Now either you learn to live with them, or throw away the whole darn thing!" And then he adds - "What do you think we are, John - demigods? We're just men."

If the Bible were being written in today's world, I'm pret' sure Paul would give good advice for attending college and picking a pension plan. But instead - being the practical guy he was - he gave personalized advice for his actual audience...Greeks, Jews, Romans, mostly poor and living in a society with 1% in charge of the other 99%.

And incidentally, Paul was certainly not pro-slavery. He protected a runaway slave (check the book of Philemon), encouraged slaves to buy their freedom if they could, and bashed slavetraders, comparing them to murderers of their own parents (check I Timothy 1:9-11). But he also ministered within a specific social context, and his job was not to preach political revolution. And even if he had attacked slavery directly, what then? Should he demand that workers make a minimum wage? Or that they only work forty hours a week? Or that they have a PPO, not HMO?

Even in the Old Testament, you have verses like Deuteronomy 23:15 - "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." Not exactly Dredd Scott. And Israelites were exhorted to be kind to their slaves, given that they were once slaves themselves under the Egyptians.

Another example: in Jeremiah 34:8-22, the rich families, in an act of piety, decide to release their slaves. Then, after a few days of ironing their own clothes, they think better of it and reenslave them. For this heinous action, God condemns them to sword, plague, and famine (verse 17). Interesting to note: 1) when looking for something super-pious to get God's attention, their first thought was to free their slaves; and 2) the reenslavement got God really upset.

In Matthew 19:1-12, the Pharisees confront Jesus and say, paraphrased: the Scriptures give rules about divorce, so it's OK, right? And Jesus says, no way! - divorce is an offense against one's wife/husband and God Himself. Then His disciples ask, wait a minute - why in the world did Moses give rules about divorce, if divorce is so rotten? And Christ explains that even though the rule is there to govern the rotten behavior, that doesn't mean that behavior is morally acceptable.

Frankly, judging the Bible by comparing modern democratic capitalism to ancient substinence economies is...ridiculous.

Now, for a few specific references.

- The Noah passage has been used to justify American slavery, but incorrectly. Like you point out, Ham's son was Canaan - the people that the Israelites took over when they overran the promised land. Besides, the Bible doesn't put much credence to drunken curses - check out Baalam's misadventures in Numbers 22-24. The Noah bit is put in to criticize Noah, not to justify slavery.

Not only does this verse (and similar verses, like Deuteronomy 24:7) refer to killing the kidnapper, not the fella he wrongfully enslaves. And it's never considered appropriate to torture a slave - or anyone, for that matter.

The point of the parable in its full context (12:35-48) is about Christ's return, not a treatise on slavery. Christ is just using common social elements that His audience will recognize. If you want a really shocking parable, flip ahead to Luke 16:1-15, with a dishonest accountant who would make Enron proud. Or 18:1-8, which stars a corrupt judge. Muggers make a cameo in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Read in context, Christ is clearly not giving approval to slavers, frauds, cheats, and thieves.

Speaking of which, I think it's time I got back to ToEE!

 

So, here I am. I've selected a few quotes to refer to, but if you would rather have a specific question answered, tell me. I have to warn you, it's going to be lengthy. Such is the price of attempting to give and get exhausting answers

The Noah part as well as many parts speaking on early happenings before Abraham has much more figurative use than historical one. For people of the East, facts illustrate principles and not the other way round. Various artistic figures may be used to reflect a general truth and show it in a special way as to stress what is really important in it. Even in the Graeco-Roman times of Jesus, He still speaks in examples, analogies, metaphors and similar to enable better understanding of His message among the audience - primarily the common folk of Israel. He talks differently with the Pharisees, with the learned in scripture, with intellectuals. There's even a special passage about that in the New Testament, but I can't give you the location, nor do I remember the exact wording to search it for you. I guess Grey Magistrate's Phariseean example serves well.

In the Old Testament, and the older the more , the trend is much more visible. You have figures similar to tales Jesus told common folks, and you have elaborate structures characteristic of typically priestly scripture and giving hangover of hangovers to today's well-titled exegetes.

When it comes to nations, servantship or even slavery may reflect political, economic or cultural supremacy. The language is the language of that era, it's not the 21st century's scientific jargon and methods. After all, how does that differ from vassalisation, and do we really scold middle ages for having vassal ties? Not like vassal ties differ much from today's factual dependencies. We have some now, why shouldn't the ancients have?

It's not as much effective against the slaves as against the other slave owners. In legal terms, these are rights effective erga omnes. Your slave is your property, to take him from you and make him work for the kidnapper is theft, much like horse theft. Punishable, as it must be. Taking slaves to free them or shelter them from severe masters is addressed differently, as Grey Magistrate's quotes show.

Note that it's much more modern and progressive than everything the Israelites' neighbours had. It's unconditional. You give him the chance or you are in sin and caboom! punishment is on you.

This is an interesting bit. It suggests that, actually, some slaves were able to say "yes, I love my master and yes, he's a good one, I want to serve him". I've gone through this when defending liege serfdom in mediaeval context. There are several rights and duties working both ways and, in a sane master-slave relationship, there are benefits for both parties.

Doesn't have to have a sexual context, if that's what you mean. Especially in archaic contexts, please functions much like in "as you please", "if you please", "if it pleases you" etc. Hence "pleasant man", "pleasant to the eye". Like in the French s'il vous plait or Latin si placet. I guess the modern wording sense is "if the master isn't satisfied with her".

Slave thiefs are punished much like cattle thiefs. Stealing of slaves couldn't go unpunished. Let's take an ancient society. It's much like Menzoberranzan. There's some king aka Yvonnel Baenre, the head of the most important house, who has the biggest brawl around but can't just start and kick all others' ass as it pleases him (her). The houses tend to fight one another and if the king isn't powerful enough, they fight openly, they fight real wars. When they capture another's keep, they loot it, abduct family members, servants etc. In biblical Law that is punishable.

If he continues for a day or two instead of giving it all at once and killing the servant.

[quotes]And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.[/quote]

This proves the existence of slavery, but it gives evidence to relatively mild treatment of slaves. There's no such thing in Israel's neighbours at the time. What's more, it seems an instrument of protecting servants from abusive masters. You don't have such protection of slaves in Roman Law or even in feudal laws with reference to liege subjects.

Cruel times. Another option would be to stone him to death, cut his hand off or sell him abroad. A savage version of going to prison for debts. In those times, it was much, much better to be a slave than a prisoner.

Bondman means a debt servant rather than slave. However, the disctinction is never fully clear in ancient times. For example the Latin category of servi (servus in singular) - from which the word servant comes, is used in ancient sources rather than ancilli, ancillae etc which signifies the real slavery as we imagine it.

And subjects to kings, citizens to authorities, children to parents, wives to husbands. We can't really expect Paul to have told them about suffrage and equal rights

Again, a bit like with authorities and parents.

As Grey Magistrate pointed out, Paul couldn't really tell them to rebel and fight for freedom and tell their masters to release them at once. Who would listen to him? Besides, Paul wasn't a politician, he wasn't a political leader. His mission was not to head a rebellion, even if it had any chance of success, but to spread the gospel. Also, from a Christian point of view, eternal welfare is much more important than temporal welfare. Thus, slavery was not Pauls' primary concern.

Realistically looking at it, how would the slaves' fortune really improve if they were let go? They need housing, food, drink, clothing, money for taxes... Everything like that is provided by the slave master. Perhaps the slave master is not the best term here, as the word "master" in this context in ancient sources is used to distinguish the head of the family and the chief legal owner of the family's property. Hence, people were "masters" of a few coins, a coat or a beer mug. There's also some analogy to lords, as it is sort of deferential title.

Commandments are the foundation of Judeochristian moral teachings. And of Law. Law, however, is not as sacred as commandments. It's only secondary to decalogue and it's meant for a specific society in a specific time in a specific place. What is interpreted as general is viewed as such when it doesn't seem to be moderated by current circumstances. What would you do with the people if you cancelled out slavery? How would you feed them, cloth them, house them? Would you make a modern society a few thousand, or even hundred, years ago? Condemning a practical solution isn't really a great idea. Like in Churchill quote: democracy isn't good but it's the best thing we have around. Everything has good and bad sides, and not everything is possible at a given time and in a given place. Mind you, also, that slavery was not viewed in our modern categories. It was, first of all, a real factual thing - not theoretical speculation. A part of everyday, not an academic dispute. It was viewed differently.

A good point. Actually people tend to think like ancient Jews in the times of Jesus. If His mission was not to liberate Israel from Romans, how could he be expected to come and get rid of slavery? His realm was not of this world and He didn't come to sort thing out here, but to lay down solid moral foundations and start changing people from inside, shall we say. As a matter of evolution over time, not revolution. Even though His teachings were revolutionary enough to cost Him life.

However, when He told people to do unto other people as they wish to be done unto, we may conclude that such a broad generalisation included the treatment of slaves.

The answer is love. God is perfect and God is loving, ergo God loves perfectly. God loves perfectly, so He loves selflessly, but He would like the love to be mutual. However, a perfect love in so much as it can be. Therefore love given of free, consenting heart. God loves a cheerful giver, remember? So there must be a choice of whether to love God or not and on what levels to love him, and how much. Among possibly other reasons, that's why evil exists, that's why there's suffering. God could have made us perfectly good without free will - would that be better? No other options, not even a different possibility, but only to love God. Like slavery. God doesn't want that.

This connects with the above point. As a choice is given as to whether to love God or not, there must be a valid other option. It must be possible to choose not to love God and to turn your back on Him. As St. Augustine said, God could create man without man's help, but He can't save him without his help. No more than create a square circle. It wouldn't be salvation. Everyone would be made good, deprived of will and made a puppet. Who would want that?

Secondly, as heaven (paradise) is perfectly good, nothing else than perfect good can be let in. God can't let evil in there or it wouldn't be the holy heaven.

Very right. It's like "Don't do that, for it's wrong. If you can't resist, however, at least do it this way to avoid more harm."

I hope this helps. If you have doubts as to any point, feel free to ask me.

 

Actually heaven is shown to be far from perfect, otherwise how could Lucifer have challenged god and been thrown out? Why would angels need to carry swords? But you have made some good points, though I personally feel alot of it is making excuses for things said in the bible. Rape was considered a sin in the bible then and it is so now. What about it being a sin to wear cloth from two different fabrics? Is that no longer a sin? The real crux comes down to who has a right to say this is no longer a sin or that something else is now a sin? Don't get me wrong, I actually truly respect real christians because of the things they must strive for to do as Jesus said. Digressing here, those like Jerry Falwell disgust me at how they love to quote Old Testament (eye for an eye, strike them down, etc) instead of adhering to Jesus's much gentler and much, much harder path. You said it was the times, and they weren't preaching revolution, so if society then condemned something that was wrong, but is no longer is it still a sin. I don't believe anywhere in the bible does it says that anyone who enslaves people will be barred from heaven unless they release their slaves and repent. That is what I feel is missing from the bible. It pretty much blatently says the truly rich can't make it into heaven, so why couldn't the same be said of slave-owners.

 

Those things you have spoken of as sinful were social laws and guidelines concerning health and wellbeing -which were one in those times.

Just like circumcision, to avoid infection from sand.

I think chevalier and Grey Magistrate have said enough, not that slavery was supported, but that everyone must be loved equally, if they do the wrong thing it is better, as chevalier said, to begin nudging them in the right direction rather than to call them out and make them your enemy. In which case they do nothing, change nothing for the good. It was perhpas the only way in which to cause any such change from within the people themselves, their own decisions because that is what they think is right.

You have a good point, it could have been stated in no uncertain terms, but then again it allready could have, and it is just being misinterpreted, or it was allready included in general statemets like the one mentioned of "do unto others" and the one you have said about those who hoarded material posessions.

The commandments and the direct sayings of Jesus are not the same as the general allergories and societal suggestions.

 

It's not like I'm downplaying this important point or pretending to know all the answers, but to me it seems like this: Lucifer had free will. Free will is not removed when you get into heaven. This still leaves the problem of the possibility of sinning in heaven (which can be similar or different in case of humans and angels comparison), but generally it means that Lucifer was able to make conscious decisions with valid consequences. So he could choose to adore himself in the place of God. Thrown out, because he was no longer fitting, he no longer belonged there.

Well, it's figurative. It's how we see them. They might as well have AK-47's or lightsabres. It's an alegory of the fight between heaven and hell, good and evil, angels and devils (daemons). I don't really imagine it as crowds of devils with battering rams storming the gates of heaven. At the same time I don't negate the duel of St Michael Archangel and Satan over the body of Moses, for instance. Well, angelic holy swords +25 and celestial fullplates of shining +50 are human perception

Explanations, right. Sometimes it might even look like justifying why something could be there and why it's not wrong. Well, I'm but a human. I don't know all answers. I just have my limited human brain.

Much of the Law is practical rules. Make it religious and it will be obeyed religiously, unlike ordinary lay law. Technically it's a sin if you don't listen to your doctor, so why not make it a sin not to circumcise if it's the only way to prevent infection? That's how I view that. Generally, in Christianity, to some extent there exists a religious obligation to obey society's laws. A matter of morality, following religion. Perhaps that's why the Law for the people of Israel is in the Bible.

I, for one, am genuinely scared at the thought of God applying the "eye for an eye" rule on me. I just hope He'll have mercy. Would it be honest if I played people's judge and went by "eye for an eye" myself?

An act in itself is sinful or not. It's only different what you consider an act for that purpose. For instance, killing in necessary self-defence is not a sin. Killing for selfish reasons is. Killing in anger lesser than killing in cold blood. And so on. So the sinful act would be "killing for selfish reasons" rather than killing. Well, circumstances do matter. Societal regulations prohibiting something under sin concentrate on practical or social ramifications rather than the act in itself. Hate, pride, greed, sloth - many "ready" sins may accompany a certain otherwise morally neutral act. I don't know what a sin is the case with two-fabric clothing.

Perhaps some two fabrics shouldn't go together? They had separate bowls for boiling meat and other food because of a line saying "you will not boil goatling in the milk of his mother". Or Kosher meat. Not only can it not be the meat of certain species, but also the animal needs to be killed in one clean cut (among other requirements). Humanitarian perhaps? I don't know.

There are many such rules and they were imposed for many reasons that aren't readily apparent now in present times. Some are believed still valid and binding, some are not. As a rule, Christianity is not bound by Mosaic Law, at least not by innate virtue of that law.

I don't really think there is such a quote, but it can be implied from what's already been said, I think. When it's sinful, that is. Technically, enslaving a criminal doesn't have to sinful. Letting an impoverished fellow citizen become your slave isn't an evil act. But anyway, I think you're referring to a raiding party looting a village and selling the farmers in slavery and similar cases, aren't you?

 

I was refering to slavery of any kind, but more so the buying and selling of slaves. Being indentured for, say, 7 years is more like being given a jail sentence. But the wholesale buying and selling of slaves to me is reprehensible in any form.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, for one, am genuinely scared at the thought of God applying the "eye for an eye" rule on me. I just hope He'll have mercy. Would it be honest if I played people's judge and went by "eye for an eye" myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe you should hve too much to worry on that end. God seemed to have a revelation somewhere between the Old Testament and the New Testament. He seriously mellowed out or something. lol. The way Jesus and God are portrayed in the New Testament they would never stand for an "eye for an eye".

Well, it's figurative. It's how we see them. They might as well have AK-47's or lightsabres. It's an alegory of the fight between heaven and hell, good and evil, angels and devils (daemons). I don't really imagine it as crowds of devils with battering rams storming the gates of heaven. At the same time I don't negate the duel of St Michael Archangel and Satan over the body of Moses, for instance. Well, angelic holy swords +25 and celestial fullplates of shining +50 are human perception

See, this is where things get murky. You say that is figurative. How is it up to you or anyone to say what is figurative and what is literal in the Bible? Maybe there was literally a war in heaven and Lucifer and his followers were cast out of heaven (I never have gotten a firm handle on the serpent, Satan, and Lucifer - in Job (proof that God can be just as evil as anyone) Satan at least appears to be in heaven chatting it up with God. Perhaps all of the Bible is figurative. Perhaps all of it is meant to be literal. Who has the right to decide what is literal and not?

 

Historic parts or descriptional parts may be figurative. Moral message not really. How could decalogue be figurative? Would "thou shalt not kill" mean "thou shouldst not kill" or "thou shalt not kill on Monday mornings"? Or would "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" mean "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife unless she be hot"?

New doesn't discredit Old. They're both one Bible together, for Christians. As I see it, the eye for an eye rule was a great progress compared to killing a thief on the spot or simply handing over of the offender to the victim with a cheerful blessing Agreed, though, that some Christians have a different view. Like: mercy is between God and me, eye for an eye is between me and my enemies. God must forgive me, but I don't have to forgive anyone. Well, it happens. Jesus talked a real lot about that.

 

Ok then, thou shalt not kill. Tat includes in self defense if you take it literally. Judging by the Old Testament, it means not to commit murder. But in the New Testament, by Jesus's actions killing for any reason is wrong. (Otherwise Mary Magdaline-sp? should have been stoned). And many parts of the New Testament does contradict the Old. Their is no "eye for an eye", instead their is love your enemy. If an enemy strikes your cheek, offer your other to him. The attitudes regarding most everything (judge not lest ye be judged yourself, don't judge a man unless you have walked a mile in his shoes, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc, etc etc.) In the Old testament, good 'ol Mary would have been dead in a few seconds. God is full of wrath in vengeful in the Old, full of mercy and love in the New.

 

You're not the first to come up with this false dichotomy, but it gets disproved right in the first three chapters of the Bible. The punishment for desecrating the Garden of Eden is death, but instead of instantly zapping His corrupted creation, God shows mercy - He spares their lives, and mixes a Messianic promise of redemption amidst His curses on their disobedience. Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden, but it appears to be for their protection (3:22), and He continues to stay in relationship with them - in the very next chapter, God is chatting with Adam's kids.

So right from the very outset, we see a God who is intermingling justice and mercy, curses and blessings, anger and love. You get the same idea from the history books, the Psalms, and the prophets - look at Ezekiel, where God not only pronounces judgement on Israel and its neighbors, but also emphasizes over and over in chapter 33 that, quote, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live", and in chapter 37 we see the promise of redemption and resurrection for God's chosen.

And as for the idea that Christ was all mercy and mush - whatever! He repeatedly lambastes the Pharisees and Saducees (Luke 11:37-52 for just one example), says that unbeliving Israeli towns will suffer more than Sodom and Gomorrah at the final judgement (Luke 10:8-16), claims to be bringing division and not peace (Luke 12:49-53), warns of hell (Luke 16:19-31, for instance), and in the very last chapter of Revelation consigns idolaters to hell (Revelation 22:15).

The Bible's portrayal of God is far more nuanced, and consistent, than casual critics give it (or Him) credit.

 

I never said he never showed mercy in the Old testament, but you must admit he is much more merciful and forgiving in the New compared to the Old. And yes Jesus is harsh and condemning but he does not smite them and yes they will go to hell but that isnt the same as telling your followers to kill every man, woman, and child while you are conquiring lands that don't belong to you. Going to hell for being bad is one thing, getting stoned to death for almost every offence is not. Jesus never asked someone to sacrifice his son either.

[ January 18, 2004, 06:26: Message edited by: Jschild ]

 

Well, I explain this a bit in the light of mission and goals to achieve. For example, the Old-Testament God was in a way bullying a desert nomadic tribe and you know how those guys are when it comes to authority Jesus came to a conquered nation and there was no question of statecraft, great politics or military conquest. Jesus didn't have to say "kill them or they'll kill you". He didn't come to hold secular authority and be occupied with secular matters, despite the fact that He actually was the rightful heir to the throne but that's not the point, but to take care of people's minds and hearts - preach the gospel of love and rebirth.

When He smites, and He does, that's not for even morality-related offences, but for purely religious ones, like in the Temple.

At the same time, He did say He wasn't going to change a iota in Mosaic Law. That is, because Law is Law and love is love. Stick to the Law when dealing with your neighbour and voila, you'll have the Law applied to yourself - that's the message of the story of Mary Magdelene or Jesus and the harlot. Jesus could as well have said "just who of you hypocrites didn't sleep with her?". Or one of her colleagues. Look how quickly they relaxed their legalist approach

As for getting stoned to death, that's also the law for the people of Israel, fulfilling all purposes of normal law. So it's not only religious rules. If Israel didn't have laws in the Bible, who knows what the Kings would have come up with? They were not exactly mild and gentle... And sometimes it was necessary to let such a King loose for the people of Israel to help grasp the idea