OpenDiary.com blogger “California Christian” posted an article on slavery in the Bible and then left me the following comments. These are my short responses to those comments.

Now, as for slavery, the crux of the article was not that the Bible condems slavery, it was that certain kinds of slavery are permitted. For instance, it was preferable to take a pagan nation into slavery rather than have them killed (because killing them would be an automatic ticket to Hell). Also, slavery back then was different than it is now, and people in slavery were usually there willingly (to pay off a debt, etc). [California Christian]

We agree that the Bible does not condemn slavery outright. That is a good starting point. Most people would agree today that slavery in any form is immoral. This begs the following question: If our sense of morality with respect to this issue is more acceptable than God’s position in the Bible, then in what sense can one say that God is not only a morally superior being but the source of morality? If the Bible is the only legitimate and objective source of morality, how is it that we have managed to move beyond it?

These questions aside, California Christian attempts to argue that the kind of slavery allowed for in the Bible is at the very least a tolerable kind of slavery. These pagan nations might, perhaps, disagree. Why is the only choice between enslaving or killing pagan nations?  What is going on here? California Christian then goes on to assert that people in slavery were “usually” there willingly – were the pagan nations taken into slavery there willingly?

What is obvious to me is that the Bible, and hence, the God of the Bible, treats the nation and people of Israel differently than it treats other nations and peoples. For instance, Jewish law states quite explicitly that owning foreign slaves (or non-Jewish slaves) is permissible (and presumably desirable) but that owning fellow Jews as slaves is not allowed (emphasis added):

Leviticus 25:44-46 (NRSV)

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

The only instances in which a Jew may be taken into slavery by another Jew is as a means to pay off debt. But even in this case, Jewish law restricts the term of slavery to 6 years: 

Exodus 21:1-7 (NRSV) 
These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, 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 be her master’s and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

The restriction is removed only if the slave requests to serve his master for life. (Thanks to “Conversational Atheist” for references to these verses).

It seems to me that what we are dealing with here is a national or tribal deity who protects the interests of His chosen people but couldn’t give a damn about outsiders. These passages basically refute California Christian’s central claim that slavery was different and therefore more tolerable back then. Slavery was only different for fellow Hebrews – it doesn’t appear to be much different at all for non-Hebrews, i.e., non Yahweh worshippers. 

This goes along with what “Conversational Atheist” states in this article on the subject: God has a problem with people owning Jews as slaves (see Exodus), but God does not have a problem with Jews owning slaves, provided that they were not Jewish.

However, California Christian goes on:

As he states in the article, the Bible says that anyone caught selling another into slavery was to be put to death. Joseph in the book of Genesis was sold into slavery, which was wrong, and God used it for the good of Joseph, earning him favor in the eyes of the pharoah. And Joseph eventually ended up forgiving his family. [California Christian]

Let’s look at that verse in question:

“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

This is clearly a stipulation against kidnapping in particular, not a general rule against selling others into slavery. After all, in Leviticus, the law clearly states that you may acquire slaves from other countries or from foreigners living among you. At the very least is okay to buy slaves and  make them your own property. Just prior to this passage, Exodus 21:7, describes rules and provisions associated with selling your own daughter into slavery (note: this practice is not condemned). So, clearly, the conclusion drawn from this single passage by California Christian is quite erroneous. Additionally, it is not clear, at least to me, whether this passage refers to kidnapping other Jews or just kidnapping other people in general.

So, where does this leave us? No matter how hard California Christian or others try, there simply is no way to morally justify these provisions. People today would be outraged if Jews in Israel took Pakistanis, for instance, as slaves. Yet this is the kind of behavior that is explicitly sanctioned within the pages of the Bible. It is clear to me that these pages represent the ancient and, now at least, misguided moral practices of an Iron age civilzation looking to codify their questionable behavior in terms of religious authority.