The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[athrock]

IS GOD A MORAL MONSTER - SLAVERY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
 
Many people argue that the portrayal of God in the Old Testament exposes Him as a “moral monster”, and they cite the existence of slavery in Israel as one example of God’s immorality. In their view, it would have been proper for God to outlaw slavery altogether.
 
This perspective suffers from the fallacy of presentism—the interpretation of past events in terms of modern-day morals and attitudes. Instead, the historical accounts of Israel as recorded in the Bible should be judged within the context of the Ancient Near East (ANE). Specifically, the Mosaic Law of Israel may be compared with other ANE codes of law such as that of Hammurabi. Such comparisons will highlight the incremental advancement of ideals for human behavior which God embedded in Mosaic Law.
 
There are three primary texts pertaining to the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15. From these, we can extract the following specific instructions:
 

1. Enslavement of others by kidnapping was prohibited. (Ex. 21:16)
   “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.”
2. A Hebrew slave was to be set free after six years of service if the slave chose freedom; they were not slaves for life (Ex. 21:2-6). Non-Hebrew slaves purchased from neighboring nations could be slaves for life. (Lev. 25:46)
   
3. If a female slave was chosen to be a wife of the owner’s son, the owner was to treat her as his own daughter. The husband was obligated to provide her with food, clothing and sex (which would result in the blessing of children). If he failed to provide these things, she was free to leave. (Ex. 21:7-11)
   
4. Slave owners were to be punished for killing their slaves. (Ex. 21:20)
   
5. Under some circumstances, slaves were to be set free if they were severely injured by their owners. (Ex. 21:26-27)
   
6. Slaves were to be given a day of rest. (Ex. 23:12)
   

 
Paul Copan, author of Is God a Moral Monster?, notes the following incremental improvements in the treatment of slaves required by Mosaic Law when compared with other ANE codes:
 

What specific improvements could we highlight? Regarding slavery, Christopher Wright declares: "The slave [in Israel] was given human and legal rights unheard of in contemporary societies." Mosaic legislation offered a radical advance for ANE cultures. According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, "We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters." Kidnapping a person to sell as a slave was punishable by death: "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death" (Exod. 21:16; see also 1 Tim. 1:10). This biblical prohibition presents a marked repudiation of the kidnapping of Africans that ushered in the era of more recent Western slavery. Yet the new atheists seem given to blur any such distinctions. While other ANE cultures may too have prohibited kidnapping, the Mosaic Law stands out in sharp moral contrast to their standard extradition treaties for, and harsh treatment of, runaway slaves. Hammurabi called for the death penalty to those helping runaway slaves. Israel, however, was to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves (Deut. 23:15-16).
 
Indeed, Hebrew slaves were to be granted release in the seventh year (Lev. 29:35-43) - a notable improvement over other ANE law codes. Furthermore, masters had to release them from service with generous provisions, all conducted with the right attitude for the slave's well-being as he enters into freedom: "Beware that there is no base thought in your heart . . . and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother" (Deut. 15:9). The motivating reason for all of this is the fact "that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today" (Deut. 15:12-18, esp. v. 15). The overriding goal in Deuteronomy 15 is that there be no slavery in the land at all (vv. 4, 11). Gordon McConville calls this "revolutionary."
 
Another marked improvement is in the release of injured slaves themselves (Exod. 21:20-1). This is in contrast to their masters merely being compensated, which is typical in the ANE codes. Elsewhere in the OT, Job recognizes that he and his slaves have the same Maker and come from the same place-their mother's womb (Job. 31:15). Later in Amos (2:6; 8:6), slavery is again repudiated. Thus, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris notwithstanding, such improvements-or pointers back to Genesis 1:26-27-can hardly be called "a warrant for trafficking in humans" or treating them "like farm equipment."

From this, we can see that the New Atheists argument that the God of the Old Testament results from fallacious thinking - specifically, presentism - and that God was actually moving the Israelites forward incrementally toward more enlightened thinking. Consequently, any justifications for atheism that are based upon objections to God as a moral monster are unfounded.

[LastPoet]

[Anomalocaris]

Prove that specific God exists in the way you think it exists.  Otherwise you suffer from make-believism, which is socially altogether more embarrassing, at least if you want to fit in with a genuinely better sort of people than yourself, than presentism.

[brewer]

Really? Again?

Are we going to go through the OT and have you try to justify every immoral act?

Same song, different verse.

[LastPoet]

You do realise that slavery of any kind is immoral? Bending over backwards in poor apologetics does not make your god real, it just explains that that book was written by men as a form of controlling the masses.

[GrandizerII]

From this, we can see that the New Atheists argument that the God of the Old Testament results from fallacious thinking - specifically, presentism - and that God was actually moving the Israelites forward incrementally toward more enlightened thinking. Consequently, any justifications for atheism that are based upon objections to God as a moral monster are unfounded.

You're only open-minded about what you already accept as true, it seems.

If God had explicitly commanded the Israelites to molest little children, many apologists would've still justified such a divine command.

Quite disturbing.

[Expired]

IS GOD A MORAL MONSTER - SLAVERY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
 
Many people argue that the portrayal of God in the Old Testament exposes Him as a “moral monster”, and they cite the existence of slavery in Israel as one example of God’s immorality. In their view, it would have been proper for God to outlaw slavery altogether.
 
This perspective suffers from the fallacy of presentism—the interpretation of past events in terms of modern-day morals and attitudes. Instead, the historical accounts of Israel as recorded in the Bible should be judged within the context of the Ancient Near East (ANE). Specifically, the Mosaic Law of Israel may be compared with other ANE codes of law such as that of Hammurabi. Such comparisons will highlight the incremental advancement of ideals for human behavior which God embedded in Mosaic Law.
 
There are three primary texts pertaining to the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15. From these, we can extract the following specific instructions:
 

1. Enslavement of others by kidnapping was prohibited. (Ex. 21:16)
   “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.”
   
2. A Hebrew slave was to be set free after six years of service if the slave chose freedom; they were not slaves for life (Ex. 21:2-6). Non-Hebrew slaves purchased from neighboring nations could be slaves for life. (Lev. 25:46)
   
3. If a female slave was chosen to be a wife of the owner’s son, the owner was to treat her as his own daughter. The husband was obligated to provide her with food, clothing and sex (which would result in the blessing of children). If he failed to provide these things, she was free to leave. (Ex. 21:7-11)
   
4. Slave owners were to be punished for killing their slaves. (Ex. 21:20)
   
5. Under some circumstances, slaves were to be set free if they were severely injured by their owners. (Ex. 21:26-27)
   
6. Slaves were to be given a day of rest. (Ex. 23:12)
   

 
Paul Copan, author of Is God a Moral Monster?, notes the following incremental improvements in the treatment of slaves required by Mosaic Law when compared with other ANE codes:
 

What specific improvements could we highlight? Regarding slavery, Christopher Wright declares: "The slave [in Israel] was given human and legal rights unheard of in contemporary societies." Mosaic legislation offered a radical advance for ANE cultures. According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, "We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters." Kidnapping a person to sell as a slave was punishable by death: "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death" (Exod. 21:16; see also 1 Tim. 1:10). This biblical prohibition presents a marked repudiation of the kidnapping of Africans that ushered in the era of more recent Western slavery. Yet the new atheists seem given to blur any such distinctions. While other ANE cultures may too have prohibited kidnapping, the Mosaic Law stands out in sharp moral contrast to their standard extradition treaties for, and harsh treatment of, runaway slaves. Hammurabi called for the death penalty to those helping runaway slaves. Israel, however, was to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves (Deut. 23:15-16).
 
Indeed, Hebrew slaves were to be granted release in the seventh year (Lev. 29:35-43) - a notable improvement over other ANE law codes. Furthermore, masters had to release them from service with generous provisions, all conducted with the right attitude for the slave's well-being as he enters into freedom: "Beware that there is no base thought in your heart . . . and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother" (Deut. 15:9). The motivating reason for all of this is the fact "that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today" (Deut. 15:12-18, esp. v. 15). The overriding goal in Deuteronomy 15 is that there be no slavery in the land at all (vv. 4, 11). Gordon McConville calls this "revolutionary."
 
Another marked improvement is in the release of injured slaves themselves (Exod. 21:20-1). This is in contrast to their masters merely being compensated, which is typical in the ANE codes. Elsewhere in the OT, Job recognizes that he and his slaves have the same Maker and come from the same place-their mother's womb (Job. 31:15). Later in Amos (2:6; 8:6), slavery is again repudiated. Thus, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris notwithstanding, such improvements-or pointers back to Genesis 1:26-27-can hardly be called "a warrant for trafficking in humans" or treating them "like farm equipment."

From this, we can see that the New Atheists argument that the God of the Old Testament results from fallacious thinking - specifically, presentism - and that God was actually moving the Israelites forward incrementally toward more enlightened thinking. Consequently, any justifications for atheism that are based upon objections to God as a moral monster are unfounded.

New evidence has also come to light that Santa is not jolly, in fact he's a miserable old fucker.

[Chad32]

This kind of goes into the problem that Yahweh and Jesus are never more than slightly more progressive than contemporary moral values at the time. He could have abolished slavery, but instead he just put a few limitations on a very bad idea. He won't demand that women are treated equally. He just says that raping someone else's woman is not allowed. It doesn't really matter which moral issue you bring up. The best you can ever say is that biblical laws are a little more progressive than some other contemporary laws at the time. They don't match up with modern secular laws.

[Mr.wizard]

Anyone who thinks slavery of any kind is moral, is a moral monster.

[athrock]

Anyone who thinks slavery of any kind is moral, is a moral monster.

Careful...that sounds like an argument for the existence of objective moral values.