Difficult Bible Passages

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 4

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In part 3 of this series, we started to compare New World slavery to Old Testament (OT) slavery and we found that there were radical differences.  Let’s continue with the comparison.

The third characteristic of New World slavery has to do with the treatment of slaves.  From part 2 of the series, we know that “the treatment of slaves was harsh by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.”

What about OT slavery?  According to the Christian Thinktank, “The Law forbade harsh treatment, set stipulations for positive treatment, and set tight boundaries around punishment/abuse of servants.”

This difference is fleshed out in multiple ways by the Thinktank:

  1. “There are several general admonitions in the Law against harsh/abusive/oppressive behavior toward Hebrew servants” – see Lev. 25:43; Lev. 25:46; Lev. 25:53; Deut. 15:18.
  2. “In fact, the Law assumes that the situation may be lucrative enough for some servants to decide to stay with their masters for their lifetime” – see Ex. 21:5; Deut. 15:16
  3. “The general scholarly assessment is that this domestic ‘slavery’ was not very atrocious, went way beyond ‘property only’, and instead created family-like bonds.”
    1. Here is an example quoted from the book The Israelites : “However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household–there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the later Roman world.”
  4. “Interestingly, when a servant was to be released at the Sabbath year (without payment of money!), the master was to send him out with gifts of material possessions!” – see Deut. 15:12-14
  5. “ALL servants were required to take the Sabbath day off–just like the masters. ” – see Ex. 20:9-10; Ex. 23:12; Deut. 5:13-15
  6. “Not only was abusive treatment of servants strictly forbidden, but the Law held masters very accountable!” – see Ex. 21:20; Ex. 21:26-27

The fourth characteristic of New World slavery is legal status.  Recall the following: “Slaves were considered ‘property’ in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners as to how they treated their ‘property’. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.”

What about OT slavery?  According to the Thinktank, “In keeping with the ‘variableness’ of notions of property in the [ancient near east] (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel’s notion of ‘property’ was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability.”

A couple additional points must be made:

  1. Servants were never considered property in the sense of New World slaves.  Accordingly slave “‘property’ is therefore seen not as ‘owned disposable goods’ but as economic output (including labor)” – see Lev. 25:14-16; Ex. 21:18-19; Lev. 25:49-53
  2. Therefore, “as a ‘managed, but not owned’ human resource, servants were NOT thereby rendered ‘disposable, non-human goods’. They were still legal agents in the culture and their masters were legally accountable for how they were treated.”

Finally, the fifth characteristic of New World slavery was the fact of no exit.  “There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a ‘bare bones’ release–no property went with the freedman.”

What about OT slavery? “One of the more amazing things about Hebrew servant-status was how ‘easy’ it was to get free!”  Here are some things to consider from the Thinktank article:

  1. “Freedom could be bought by relatives” – see Lev 25:49
  2. “The servant could buy his own freedom, whether the master WANTED to let him go or not” – see Lev 25:49
  3. “Every 7th year (the Sabbath year), all servants were to automatically go free–without ANY payment of money to the master” – see Ex.21:2; Deut. 15:12
  4. “Minor injuries due to abusive treatment automatically resulted in immediate freedom (this is actually labeled as ‘to compensate’, implying rights/duties/debt)” – see Ex 21:26-27
  5. “When freedom was granted at the Sabbath year or Year of Jubilee, the master was obligated to send them out with liberal gifts–to allow them to occupy the land in sufficiency again” – see Deut 15:13

Wow!  If you’ve read all four posts, you must now understand that Hebrew “slavery” in the OT is absolutely nothing like New World slavery.  God’s primary purpose for this institution was to help the poor in Israel.  It was to provide a safety net for families that had landed on hard times and there were strict rules about how this poverty program was to be executed.  It is simply incorrect to charge that ancient Israel instituted the same kind of slavery that was found in the New World.

Since we’ve followed the Thinktank this far, let’s end this series with the Thinktank summary:

It should be QUITE CLEAR from the above, that the institution in the Mosaic law involving voluntary, fixed-term, flexible, and protected servant-laborer roles was unlike “western”, chattel labor in almost ALL RESPECTS. To label it as ‘slavery’, except in the most general/metaphorical sense of the word, is significantly inappropriate.

Difficult Bible Passages

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 3

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In part 2 of this series, we reviewed 5 characteristics of New World slavery.  Starting in part 3, we will compare the 5 characteristics of New World slavery with Hebrew slavery in the Law (first five books of the Old Testament).

Before we get started, a couple of general comments need to be made.  Since the great majority of passages in the Law are regarding instructions about Hebrew slaves serving other Hebrews, that is the situation we will analyze.  The few passages in the Law concerning foreign slaves will not be addressed (maybe another time).

First, New World “slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.”  What about in the case of Old Testament (OT) slavery?  According to the Christian Thinktank, “The ‘slavery’ of the OT was essentially designed to serve the poor!”  Yes, you read that correctly.  This is a fundamental and profound difference between New World and Hebrew slavery.

Consider this important text from Leviticus 25:35-43 on Hebrew slavery:

‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you.  You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.  I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.  He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.  Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers.  Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.  Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.’

The Thinktank explains, “Notice that the sole motive–in the primary text before us– for allowing ‘slavery’ is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER ‘forever’ (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most!). This is radically different than an elitest-motive.”

Second, New World entry into “slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.”  What about OT slavery?  “In the OT, this relationship was overwhelmingly voluntary, and forced, non-negotiated . . . enslavement was a capital offense.”

Four specific points need to be made here:

  1. “Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death” – see Ex. 21:16 and Deut. 24:7.
  2. “The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the person himself initiating the transaction” – see Lev. 25:39; Lev. 25:47; Deut. 15:12.
  3. “Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in length (e.g., Deut. 15:12 above), continuation of this relationship was possible, but ONLY AS a strictly voluntary act of the ‘slave'” – see Ex. 21:5-6; Deut. 15:16-17
  4. “The only clear case of involuntary servitude was in the case of a thief that was too poor to make restitution for good stolen, and here is was strictly an economic measure” – see Ex. 22:3

The next three characteristics of New World slavery will be compared to OT slavery in future posts, but I hope you can already understand that Hebrew “slavery” is radically different from the slavery of the southern United States.

Difficult Bible Passages

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 2

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In part 1 of this series of posts, we introduced the idea that there are many different kinds of slavery.  When most Americans ponder slavery, though, we are thinking of the southern United States before the Civil War.  So what was slavery like in the southern United States?  The Christian Thinktank summarizes several aspects of this type of slavery.

First, “slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.”  The Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology explains, “New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor – producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market.”

According to Britannica: “By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton…the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States.”

Second, entry into “slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.”  Again Britannica explains:

Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world. Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905. In the second half of the 15th century Europeans began to trade along the west coast of Africa, and by 1867 between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 Africans had been shipped as slaves to the New World…. The relationship between African and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors.

Third, the treatment of slaves was harsh by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.

Fourth, the legal status of New World slaves was generally like the following, according to the Christian Thinktank: “Slaves were considered ‘property’ in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners as to how they treated their ‘property’. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.”

In addition, “Slaves could not have their own property–all they had belonged to their ‘owner’. ”

Fifth, there was generally no exit from slavery.  “There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a ‘bare bones’ release–no property went with the freedman.”

We have summarized five characteristics of New World slavery, so our next step is to compare these characteristics to the characteristics of the slavery found in the Old Testament Law.  We’ll tackle that next.

Difficult Bible Passages

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 1

23 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Someone recently asked me about slavery in the Bible, and I decided it was time to take this topic on.  In order to stay focused, I want to answer a very specific question: does God support the institution of slavery in the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament)?

The Torah, also called the Law, is where God gave Israel detailed instructions about how to conduct their affairs as a nation.   How did slavery fit into the instructions God gave Israel?

Before I begin, I want to explain my source for this material.  I have relied on the Christian Thinktank.  In fact, my posts will be an attempt at compacting and summarizing the 29,000 word article written on this topic on the Thinktank.  If you would like to read the article and skip my summary, please do so, for it is a truly excellent treatment.  For those who want the summary, read on.

The first requisite step is to consider what the word slavery means.  Most of us, when we hear the word slavery, think of the institution that existed in the southern United States before the Civil War brought it to an end.   However, it turns out that the word slavery is a slippery one, for there have been many different kinds of slavery throughout world history.

Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology:

Scholars do not agree on a definition of “slavery.” The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semi-voluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of “slavery” shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term “Slavery” is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films. . . From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features. . . In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom.

What I will do in the next few posts is lay out what New World slavery was like, and then contrast that type of slavery with the kind found in the Torah.  You will discover that there are profound differences, so please come back for the rest of the series.

Existence of God

Design in the Universe as Evidence of God – Peter Kreeft audio

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Philosopher Peter Kreeft gives a brilliant overview of the argument from design in the audio below.  The audio is excerpted from one of Kreeft’s podcasts where he lectures on five arguments for the existence of God.  I beg you to set aside just 7 minutes to listen to this audio.  You won’t be sorry.

[audio:https://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Arguments-for-the-Existence-of-God-Design.mp3|titles=The Design Argument]
General Apologetics, Theology

What Is Christian Faith?

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most abused words in the English language is the word faith.  For skeptics, faith is believing in something despite reason.  For some religious folks, faith is simply the expression of positive emotions toward God.  Others claim faith is purely intellectual.

Can we more rigorously define what faith is?  I think we can, and I will call on Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli to help out, from their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

Kreeft and Tacelli first differentiate between the object of faith and the act of faith.

The object of faith includes all the things that are believed about God, as communicated by the Bible.  These things that are believed are expressed in propositions (e.g., Jesus is the Son of God).  These propositions, however, are only pointers.  They direct our attention to the real object of faith, God.  If the real object of faith is God, then why do we need all the propositions that capture our beliefs about God?  Kreeft and Tacelli explain, “Without propositions, we cannot know or tell others what God we believe in and what we believe about God.”

The act of faith consists of more than just belief.  There are four components of faith: 1) emotional, 2) intellectual, 3) volitional, and 4) heart.  Let’s look at each of these one at a time.

Emotional faith is “feeling assurance or trust or confidence in a person.  This includes hope (which is much stronger than just a wish) and peace (which is much stronger than mere calm).”  Emotional faith is the weakest component of faith because emotions change so frequently.

Intellectual faith is belief.  According to Kreeft and Tacelli, intellectual faith is more stable than emotional faith.  Strongly held beliefs will tend not to change often.  They cite the definition of intellectual faith from the Baltimore Catechism: “the act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe everything God has revealed on the grounds of the authority of the One who revealed it.”

Volitional faith is an act of the will.  “This faith is faithfulness, or fidelity.  It manifests itself in behavior, that is, in good works. . . . For the root of volitional faith – the will – is the faculty or power of the soul that is closest to . . . the ‘heart’.”

Heart faith is the very center of a person’s being, the center of their soul.  This is the “I” where the emotions, intellect, and will reside.  “The heart is where God the Holy Spirit works in us. . . . With the heart we choose our ‘fundamental option’ of yes or no to God, and thereby determine our eternal identity and destiny.”

All four of these components of faith work together, with the heart being the intersection of them all.  Faith is, therefore, not just about emotions or intellect.  Faith involves the entire person – every part.

The interaction of the intellect and the will are particularly interesting.  Kreeft and Tacelli describe how they work together:

The intellect is the soul’s navigator, but the will is its captain. . . . The will can command the intellect to think, but the intellect cannot command the will to will, only inform it, as a navigator informs the captain.  Yet the will cannot simply make you believe.  It can’t force the intellect to believe what appears to it to be false, or to disbelieve what seems to it to be true.

We could also add that if the emotions are predisposed against believing, then faith can be thwarted.  This is why purely intellectual appeals to a non-believer may not be effective.  If their emotions and/or will are set against faith, then intellectual arguments cannot bring them to God.  Likewise, purely emotional appeals may appear to work for a short time until that person has time to think about their beliefs and decide they are not reasonable (they have an intellectual problem).  There are even people who will to believe, but their intellect and/or emotions stand in the way.

Christian faith deals with the whole individual, so the takeaway is that the church can never become one dimensional and forget that will, intellect, emotions, and finally the very heart of a person must all express faith.

Archaeology

Who Is Portrayed in the Earliest Existing Biblical Painting?

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The earliest existing painting portraying a biblical scene was found in a building called the House of the Physician in the ruins of the city of Pompeii, a city destroyed in AD 79 by Mount Vesuvius.  The painting is a striking rendition of the scene from 1 Kings 3 where two women lay claim to the same child and Solomon wisely determines who is the real mother of the child.

According to art expert Theodore Feder, this painting was likely commissioned by a non-Jew living in Pompeii in the time period just before the city was destroyed.  What makes this painting even more fascinating is that Feder thinks he has discovered the identities of two individuals who are in the bottom left of the painting and who are portrayed admiring the wisdom of Solomon.

In a recent article published in the Biblical Archaeology Review, Feder argues that the two individuals shown admiring Solomon are none other than Socrates and Aristotle, two of the most famous Greek philosophers of antiquity.

I believe these two figures are stand-ins for Socrates and Aristotle, introduced as a way of associating the wisdom of Solomon with that of the Greek philosophers. Put another way, their presence in the composition attests to the respect Greek philosophy could accord to Hebrew wisdom. Such a juxtaposition in art of wise men from the two civilizations was unprecedented, has rarely been done since, and is of great cultural and historical significance.

That Solomon was painted along with Socrates and Aristotle was a testament to the great respect that the Hebrew Bible was afforded as a book of wisdom in the 1st century Roman empire.  Feder concludes his article with this statement:

In selecting an episode from the Hebrew Bible, the patron departed from the canon of classical religious subject matter and elevated one from the Scriptures of a people whose influence at the time was spreading throughout the empire and would one day, in its Christian formulation, pervade it.

Atheism, General Apologetics, Theology

Does the Size of the Cosmos Render Man Insignificant?

18 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

That is the popular view among materialists (those who deny the existence of anything but the material world).  They beg us look at the sheer immensity of the universe and then look at the tininess of the human race in contrast.  The idea that man is special, that man holds a privileged seat in the cosmos is simply ridiculous, they claim.

The arch-materialist Carl Sagan (as quoted from The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World by William Dembski) had these thoughts on the matter:

Because of the reflection of sunlight . . . the earth seems to be sitting in a beam of light, as if there were some special significance to this small world.  But it’s just an accident of geometry and optics. . . . Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.  Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.

Does the size of the universe relative to man render him insignificant?  Maybe if you’re a materialist, but not if you’re a Christian.  Scripture declares that God has created man in his image, that man indeed has a special seat of honor in the universe.  Theologically, Christians recognize that the materialist argument fails.  Scientifically, works like The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery demonstrate that the earth is unique in its ability to support advanced life and to enable scientific discovery.

As Dembski points out, G. K. Chesterton wrote one of the most memorable responses to the materialist claim of man’s insignificance in his classic work Orthodoxy.  Here is Chesterton speaking of the materialist Herbert Spencer:

He popularized this contemptible notion that the size of the solar system ought to over-awe the spiritual dogma of man. Why should a man surrender his dignity to the solar system any more than to a whale? If mere size proves that man is not the image of God, then a whale may be the image of God. . . . It is quite futile to argue that man is small compared to the cosmos; for man was always small compared to the nearest tree.

What the size of the universe tells us is how awesome God is, not how insignificant man is, for man has always been spatially smaller than what surrounds him (e.g., whales and trees).  As Psalm 19 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.  Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”

Evil, Pain, and Suffering, Free Will, Sin

Why Does a Good Creature Choose Evil?

9 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Since the Fall, we know why people choose evil – we are all born with original sin that saturates our soul.  The Fall, however, does not explain why Adam and Eve, or even Satan, used their free will to choose evil, to reject God.

This question may never be answered this side of heaven with any certainty, but William Dembski offers some interesting thoughts about the subject in his latest book, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World.  Here is Dembski’s stab at this persistent mystery:

Perhaps the best we can do is offer a psychological explanation: Precisely because a created will belongs to a creature, that creature, if sufficiently reflective, can reflect on its creaturehood and realize that it is not God.  Creaturehood implies constraints to which the Creator is not subject.  This may seem unfair (certainly it is not egalitarian).  The question then naturally arises, Has God the Creator denied to the creature some freedom that might benefit it?  Adam and Eve thought the answer to this question was yes (God, it seemed, had denied them the freedom to know good and evil).

As soon as the creature answers yes to this question, its will turns against God.  Once that happens, the will becomes evil.  Whereas previously evil was merely a possibility, now it has become a reality.  In short, the problem of evil starts when creatures think God is evil for “cramping their style.”  The impulse of our modern secular culture to cast off restraint wherever possible finds its root here.

Interesting thoughts.  The creature, in effect, thinks that God is holding out on him, that what God has offered is not as good as what it should be.  Out of humanity, only the man Jesus was ever content with what God gave him, which is why he is the model we are all to emulate.

Intelligent Design

What is Intelligent Design?

25 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I’ve been reading Donald Prothero’s book Evolution, which is a book meant to show how powerful the evidence for evolution is.  Prothero, a professor of geology, certainly seems to know a lot about fossils, but he seems to know remarkably little about intelligent design (ID), a theory he maligns early in his book.

Here is Prothero’s take on ID: “Reading the ID creationists closely, you find that they don’t offer any new scientific ideas or a true alternative theory of life competing with evolution.  All they argue is that some parts of nature seem too complex for them to imagine an evolutionary explanation.”

Really?  Is that what ID is?

Perhaps a better way to answer this question would be to ask ID proponents themselves to define ID, since they are the ones proposing the theory.  I know it sounds crazy and Prothero certainly doesn’t think it’s a good idea, but let’s try any way.

According to the website of a leading ID organization, the Discovery Institute, below is a definition of ID.  I will copy the entire definition here for your convenience, although you can go to the site yourself and read it there.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

This definition is quite different from Prothero’s definition because it claims that ID is a positive scientific program that is studying the informational properties of certain features of the natural world.  To say that ID is merely arguing that “some parts of nature are too complex to imagine an evolutionary explanation” is a gross distortion.  The first thing one should do when debating an idea is to correctly define that idea.  Let’s hope other writers who participate in this debate take a little more care than Prothero.

A Christian Apologetics Blog