Is God a Moral Monster? - Slavery in the Old Testament

[Randy Carson]

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 presentismâ€"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. 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 Was God a Moral Monster?, notes the following incremental improvements in the treatment of slaves required by Mosaic Law:

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 improvementsâ€"or pointers back to Genesis 1:26-27-can hardly be called "a warrant for trafficking in humans" or treating them "like farm equipment."

[21CIconoclast]

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 presentismâ€"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. 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 Was God a Moral Monster?, notes the following incremental improvements in the treatment of slaves required by Mosaic Law:

RANDY, HELLO?  Your Yahweh has got to be a MORAL MONSTER because that is what you called him and gave me the affirmative
in the red type in the thread shown below, remember?!   OMG, the chickens always come home to roost! LOL


Re: YAHWEH creates evil, then drowns creation for it!
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2016, 05:10:36 PM »
Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 12, 2016, 02:00:34 PM


Resolved: God's actions in the Old Testament reveal Him to be a moral monster.

You have the affirmative. I will take the opposite position and explain and defend God's actions.

  http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=10036.15    (Reply #18)



Randy Carson, jettison your slavery example, and replace it with Yahweh god killing his entire creation in the Great Flood,
including innocent children, babies, zygotes, and fetus'!  Now, this is where Yahweh is a MORAL MONSTER as you agreed too above!
Randy Carson, can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E, in that you are one? Sure you can!




"Please Yahweh, don't drown my mother, what did I do to make you want to kill me
by suffocation in an horrific way, I am innocent!"



THERE IS NO WAY IN DEFENDING A SERIAL KILLER GOD LIKE YAHWEH THAT WOULD KILL INNOCENT BABIES, FETUS', AND ZYGOTES, PERIOD!
IN TRYING IN VAIN TO DO SO, MAKES YOUR APOLOGETICS SICKENING TO THE CORE TO ANY MORAL STANDARDS, BACK THEN, AND AT THE PRESENT TIME!

Looks like the inept token Catholic Randy got a new apologetic book!

[drunkenshoe]

By the Jupiter's cock! He is at it again. Iyyyh.

[21CIconoclast]

By the Jupiter's cock! He is at it again. Iyyyh.

drunkenshoe,


Don't worry, Randy can't stand logic, reason, and biblical axioms regarding his primitive bible stories, therefore, he won't last long in this thread, I guarantee it!

[marom1963]

Wow! The ship didn't have enough holes in it - you had to go poke a few more in it by bringing up slavery? God needs a new lawyer! I'm a fair guy, folks. Let's have a quick whip around and get God a new lawyer. This one would get Jesus crucified a second time. This one would get the Virgin Mary crucified along side of him!

[Randy Carson]

Wow! The ship didn't have enough holes in it - you had to go poke a few more in it by bringing up slavery? God needs a new lawyer! I'm a fair guy, folks. Let's have a quick whip around and get God a new lawyer. This one would get Jesus crucified a second time. This one would get the Virgin Mary crucified along side of him!

Your interaction with the material in the OP is really impressive.

Why not try taking one line at a time and providing a counterargument?

[marom1963]

Your interaction with the material in the OP is really impressive.

Why not try taking one line at a time and providing a counterargument?

I read it. Having a slave under ANY conditions - reprehensible! - even if God says it's OK. God's WRONG!

[Randy Carson]

I read it. Having a slave under ANY conditions - reprehensible! - even if God says it's OK. God's WRONG!

That is the view today, and I have no problem with thinking that slavery is objectively wrong in all cultures at all times.

That said, the rules established by God for the treatment of slaves by the Israelites were a radical improvement in their day, and this is an example of how God moved one group of people, the Israelites, toward his ultimate objective incrementally.

Think of how a carpenter works with wood slowly to bend and shape it. Too much all at once, and it breaks.

[marom1963]

That is the view today, and I have no problem with thinking that slavery is objectively wrong in all cultures at all times.

That said, the rules established by God for the treatment of slaves by the Israelites were a radical improvement in their day, and this is an example of how God moved one group of people, the Israelites, toward his ultimate objective incrementally.

Think of how a carpenter works with wood slowly to bend and shape it. Too much all at once, and it breaks.

OK - so why not incremental improvements toward NO theft, adultery, murder? How come a people who had been slaves were allowed to keep slaves? Why not a commandment that said, "Thou shalt not keep slaves!"

[21CIconoclast]

That is the view today, and I have no problem with thinking that slavery is objectively wrong in all cultures at all times.

That said, the rules established by God for the treatment of slaves by the Israelites were a radical improvement in their day, and this is an example of how God moved one group of people, the Israelites, toward his ultimate objective incrementally.

Think of how a carpenter works with wood slowly to bend and shape it. Too much all at once, and it breaks.

Randy, psssst, its time for you to address my post number one to you in this thread that made you the fool and a hypocrite again, okay? Thanks.

BEGIN

[Mr.Obvious]

That is the view today, and I have no problem with thinking that slavery is objectively wrong in all cultures at all times.

That said, the rules established by God for the treatment of slaves by the Israelites were a radical improvement in their day, and this is an example of how God moved one group of people, the Israelites, toward his ultimate objective incrementally.

Think of how a carpenter works with wood slowly to bend and shape it. Too much all at once, and it breaks.

See, this is what I mean when I say that people who believe in an omnipotent, -scient and -benevolent God keep skipping these traits momentarily. An allpowerfull God wouldn't have to worry about shaping it slowly, without this interfering with 'free will'. This can only be seen as an intended positive step forward if you severly limit your deity. But then again, we're already having this conversation in another thread.

[marom1963]

Or - as Christopher Hitchens wondered - are we to believe that the Israelites believed that it was OK to murder, steal and commit adultery before Moses came down from the mountain w/the 10 Commandments? They had no problem whatever w/that sort of behavior? We're supposed to believe that they alone among the ancient peoples had no morals - had not the least scruple when it came to such things. We know that the Egyptians despised adultery. We know that they punished theft and murder. Were the Egyptians more moral than God's chosen? The Greeks had similar laws. Were they more moral than God's chosen? The Romans treated their slaves better than any other ancient people - were they more moral than God's chosen because they, too, had laws against murder, theft, and adultery. Were the Romans better than God's chosen, Randy? Were God's chosen so morally bankrupt that they alone needed such a thing as the 10 Commandments, while everybody else knew w/o God saying so that such things were wrong?

[Randy Carson]

OK - so why not incremental improvements toward NO theft, adultery, murder? How come a people who had been slaves were allowed to keep slaves? Why not a commandment that said, "Thou shalt not keep slaves!"

First, what was the practice of the nations around Israel with regard to slaves? Did God's requirements improve the situation or not?

Second, was there a state-run penal system in those days, and if not, wouldn't the slavery system used by the Jews enable debtors to repay what they owed in the most humane manner possible?

[Randy Carson]

See, this is what I mean when I say that people who believe in an omnipotent, -scient and -benevolent God keep skipping these traits momentarily. An allpowerfull God wouldn't have to worry about shaping it slowly, without this interfering with 'free will'. This can only be seen as an intended positive step forward if you severly limit your deity. But then again, we're already having this conversation in another thread.

I disagree.

I mean, sure...God could have said, "Do this or else..." but that was not the approach needed to slowly bring the Jews into line with his thinking.

[Randy Carson]

Or - as Christopher Hitchens wondered - are we to believe that the Israelites believed that it was OK to murder, steal and commit adultery before Moses came down from the mountain w/the 10 Commandments? They had no problem whatever w/that sort of behavior? We're supposed to believe that they alone among the ancient peoples had no morals - had not the least scruple when it came to such things. We know that the Egyptians despised adultery. We know that they punished theft and murder. Were the Egyptians more moral than God's chosen? The Greeks had similar laws. Were they more moral than God's chosen? The Romans treated their slaves better than any other ancient people - were they more moral than God's chosen because they, too, had laws against murder, theft, and adultery. Were the Romans better than God's chosen, Randy? Were God's chosen so morally bankrupt that they alone needed such a thing as the 10 Commandments, while everybody else knew w/o God saying so that such things were wrong?

How many years BEFORE the rise of the Roman empire did Moses receive the Ten Commandments? Approximately?