@gbrooks9 â Finally, the issue of slavery in the Bible, as I promised.
First, the statements in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, do not approve of slavery. They restrict it and regulate it. Second, one must take the historical context into consideration. We should not confuse slavery as it existed in the 18th and 19th centuries in the U.S. with slavery as it existed several thousand years prior to that time. Slaves did have some limited rights in antiquity, such as not having to wash or dress their masters, and rest on the Sabbath. (Now you understand a little better why Peter was so aghast at the Lord washing his feet. Not even a slave would stoop so low!) Slaves often administered entire estates for their masters, and they often functioned in âprofessionalâ capacities, such as doctors. More importantly, there was no social âsafety netâ in agrarian societies of antiquity. Scholars estimate that as much as 15-20% of the population in first-century Judea was homeless. (Herod had a habit of confiscating peasant lands and giving them to his friends and family.) The poorest of the poor often faced a stark choice just to survive: a life of begging, banditry, or selling themselves into slavery. Removing that option in ancient economies would have doomed thousands to starvation. The abolition of slavery would have to wait until agrarian economies began to be replaced by market economies, and you should not overlook the fact that the British Parliament was spurred to act by William Wilberforceâs Christian convictions.
The last bit actually brings me to the crux of the matter, which is that God condescends to the time and place of those with whom he speaks. God could have revealed representative democracy to Moses on Mt. Sinai. God could have revealed better agricultural techniques. God could have revealed the scientific method (although, to some, he would have been doing both himself and the Israelites a disservice in that). Essentially, God does not short-circuit human development in his self-revelation.
Why would God do this? I would offer an analogy of parent and child. The human race, considered collectively, was in its childhood, in terms of its cultural, social, and economic development. Just as a parent gives guidance to a child, God sent his messengers to give us guidance. As the child grows and develops and gains experience, the guidance becomes more appropriate to his/her age. The same thing happens with Godâs guidance in the Scriptures. This is known as âprogressive revelation.â
Allow me to give some examples that are easier to illustrate than slavery, but play upon the same theme. Consider the feminist critique of the Bible. The same rules apply as above. The human race, in its childhood, was fiercely patriarchal. The Old Testament neither affirms nor approves of this, but men are restricted from abusing, abandoning, or neglecting women and children.
By the time Jesus appears, the message becomes clearer, though still not explicit. In first century Judaism, a man did not speak to an unknown woman. Yet, immediately after rebuking Nicodemus, the ultimate âinsider,â we find Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well, and for the only time prior to Peterâs great confession at Caesarea, Jesus actually reveals to her that he is the Christ. Why? First-century rabbis would not accept women as disciples. In fact, a saying attributed to one first-century rabbi in the Mishnah says that it would be better to burn the words of Torah than teach them to a woman. But then we find Martha complaining about Mary because she is sitting at the Lordâs feet (the customary position of a disciple) instead of helping with the âwomenâs work.â Then, we find out that a group of women not only support Jesusâ ministry financially (which was barely kosher), they also travel with him (which was unprecedented!). Finally, at a time when women were regarded as unreliable witnesses and their testimony only reluctantly admitted into legal proceedings, we find that the first witnesses to the resurrection are women!
Next, we come to Paul, who despite his own accommodations to culture, points the way forward in his letters to the Galatians and Colossians: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. -and- Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as Godâs chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
So, rather than question why God chose to do it as he did, I see him condescending to the human race in its infancy, but continually pushing us forward to the ideal, which Paul expressed beautifully. I believe that it is our responsibility to live up to that ideal and continue to push society and culture toward that ideal of unity and love. That is the direction the messenger pointed, and we should follow it.
That was friendly banter.
