Posted on 06/27/2015 9:07:31 AM PDT by Salvation
It was very hard for the Hebrews to come to terms with the idea of really living differently from those around them. At least they, unlike Moslems, did not fixate on the lives of their founders as a permanent ideal ... or they’d still be taking slave concubines like Abraham and Jacob did.
+1
[[takes slavery for granted as a fact of life, like water being wet.]]
It was a fact of life- it was cultural- it was widely accepted-
[[He may be conflating pagan and Hebrew slavery.]]
The way I understood it was that he was responding to the accusation that the bible ‘approved of slavery, and that therefore ‘could not be taken as a moral authority’ (not in those very words, but implied) - it appeared to me he was defending the Hebrews, not secular slavery against the accusation-
[[The OT has no limitations on slavery except for fellow Hebrews.]]
That’s just not true- God was very specific about how bondservants were to be treated, both Hebrew and non Hebrew-
[[The facts, if you read the passage carefully, are a little more disturbing. A master “gives” a male slaves a wife (note that she doesn’t seem to be asked whether she wants to be someone’s wife).]]
Yeah? Nations still give brides to men-
[[Also, women weren’t freed after seven years, and fathers could and did sell their daughters into sex slavery. Exodus 21.]]
No I’m sorry- that isn’t true- Please read commentary about those situations- biblehub.com has several reputable scholarly commentaries on nearly every verse and situation
[[The Bible’s laws of war with regard to slaves are very similar indeed to those of the Koran. For instance, when a woman is captured and her entire family killed, she is courteously to be granted a full month to mourn them before being raped by her captor.]]
Please point out where girls are raped with God’s blessings In the bible
[[It should also be noted that the Bible itself is very clear that the Hebrews seldom really followed or enforced the biblical laws,]]
Seldom huh? Do you have examples of how seldom they did? how many acts of disobedience constitutes ‘seldom’ in your opinion? How many times In the bible DID the Hebrews obey?
[[Also, women weren’t freed after seven years, and fathers could and did sell their daughters into sex slavery. Exodus 21.]]
Thaqt wasn’t ‘sex slavery’ as you accuse it of being- the customs of that time, and orders by God, were that people who purchased women bondservants was sometimes to MARRY the woman IF that woman was found to be an agreeable woman (and apparently the woman could decide if the man was agreeable too) That passage is talking aobut the man deciding whether or not she is an agreeable enough woman to fulfill the contract to MARRY her-
If she please not her master,.... “Be evil in the eyes of her master” (p); and he has no liking of her, and love to her, not being agreeable in her person, temper, or conduct, so that he does not choose to make her his wife:
who hath betrothed her to him; but not completed the marriage, as he promised, when he bought her, or at least gave reason to expect that he would; for, according to the Jewish canons, a Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under obligation to espouse her to himself, or his son, when she was fit to be betrothed (q); and so Jarchi says, he ought to espouse her, and take her to be his wife, for the money of her purchase is the money of her espousals. There is a double reading of this passage, the Keri, or marginal reading we follow; the Cetib, or written text, is, “who hath not betrothed her”, both may be taken in, “who hath not betrothed her to him”, as he said he would, or as it was expected he should; for, had she been really betrothed, what follows could not have been done:
http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-8.htm
[[I’m sure the girls captured by ISIS would appreciate a month’s respite, but it hardly looks nice by modern standards. Deuteronomy 21.]]
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
De 21:10-23. The Treatment of a Captive Taken to Wife.
10-14. When thou goest to war … and seest among the captives a beautiful woman … that thou wouldest have her to thy wife—According to the war customs of all ancient nations, a female captive became the slave of the victor, who had the sole and unchallengeable control of right to her person. Moses improved this existing usage by special regulations on the subject. He enacted that, in the event that her master was captivated by her beauty and contemplated a marriage with her, a month should be allowed to elapse, during which her perturbed feelings might be calmed, her mind reconciled to her altered condition, and she might bewail the loss of her parents, now to her the same as dead. A month was the usual period of mourning with the Jews, and the circumstances mentioned here were the signs of grief—the shaving of the head, the allowing the nails to grow uncut, the putting off her gorgeous dress in which ladies, on the eve of being captured, arrayed themselves to be the more attractive to their captors. The delay was full of humanity and kindness to the female slave, as well as a prudential measure to try the strength of her master’s affections. If his love should afterwards cool and he become indifferent to her person, he was not to lord it over her, neither to sell her in the slave market, nor retain her in a subordinate condition in his house; but she was to be free to go where her inclinations led her.
Deuteronomy 21:11. And hast a desire unto her — Moses here returning to the case of war with the neighbouring nations, directs that, if a Hebrew soldier conceived a peculiar regard for a captive woman, and desired to marry her, he must not do it immediately after she became his prisoner, it being of dangerous consequence for the Israelites to marry Gentile wives. He was first to keep the woman in his house for a month, at least, where she was to live in the retirement and habit of a mourner, for the loss of her parents and her country; as also to give her time to be instructed in the knowledge of the true God and his will, and renounce her idolatrous worship, and to allow him sufficient space to try whether his affection for her was calm and steady, or might cool and wear off. If this interval caused no abatement of his love, but, upon her turning proselyte, he still desired to make her his wife, he might then lawfully do it.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/21-11.htm
Please try to understand the customs of the times- and stop trying to make it appear God ordered His people to pillage rape and murder everyone that wasn’t Hebrew-
Bob434, are you arguing that there is a meaningful distinction between forced marriage and sexual slavery? It seems to me that in both situations, the woman has no choice but to have sex with the man, and he has complete control over her living conditions and over any children they conceive.
Am I missing something?
Sorry, but your quoted commentaries with regard to captured women don’t say at all what you seem to think they do. In fact, they say pretty much what I did, that captured women became sex slaves of their captor, just given a month to get used to the idea.
I agree this was a concession most other peoples didn’t make, and that the Hebrews were mostly just following the customs of their time. OTOH, the Bible simply doesn’t do much of anything to instruct its people not to follow those customs, which by our standards are appalling. In fact, the Hebrews, when strictly following their laws, behaved much as ISIS does today.
As far as whether the Hebrews followed their laws or not, I refer you to the Bible. Count up the number of years reigned by kings the books of Kings and Chronicles specifically say did not follow God’s law relative to those kings who did. If these bad kings routinely worshiped false gods and sacrificed children to idols, is there any particular reason to think they or their people scrupulously obeyed the laws regarding how slaves were to be treated?
I try to be as fair as possible in this discussion. The Bible is pretty clear, especially in the OT, that women weren’t given much choice about who they had sex with. Daughters were “given” by their fathers to husbands, or sold into sex slavery, as their fathers saw fit. There is not the slightest hint in the OT that the woman’s wishes in the matter need to be taken into consideration.
This was not unique to the Bible or the Hebrews. This is how women were treated in more or less all societies at the time. The treatment of women in Islam is pretty much a survival into modern times of these ancient norms, not something that Islam created. ISIS is reviving those customs in all their glory.
I try to be as fair as possible in this discussion. The Bible is pretty clear, especially in the OT, that women weren’t given much choice about who they had sex with. Daughters were “given” by their fathers to husbands, or sold into sex slavery, as their fathers saw fit. There is not the slightest hint in the OT that the woman’s wishes in the matter need to be taken into consideration.
This was not unique to the Bible or the Hebrews. This is how women were treated in more or less all societies at the time. The treatment of women in Islam is pretty much a survival into modern times of these ancient norms, not something that Islam created. ISIS is reviving those customs in all their glory.
[[Bob434, are you arguing that there is a meaningful distinction between forced marriage and sexual slavery?]]
Where does the bible say there was forced marriage? IF the man found the woman agreeable, he would then marry her- IF the woman was NOT agreeable, there would be no legal marriage
[[It seems to me that in both situations, the woman has no choice ]]
Not true- IF she found the man to be someone she would like to marry, she would make herself an agreeable woman and do what she could to win/keep his affections so that they would then become legally married- The bible makes NO mention of sex before the marriage- IF NOT however, she would be a disagreeable woman and the marriage would be called off- She had a choice in Hebrew situations- compare that with secular nations that would rape her against her will, then discard her like so much trash at will-
[[is there any particular reason to think they or their people scrupulously obeyed the laws regarding how slaves were to be treated?]]
Sure is, there were plenty who DID still worship and obey God- Shadrachj meshack abednigo (sp?) Daniel, David, etc- A Bad king does NOT a bad nation make-
[[Sorry, but your quoted commentaries with regard to captured women don’t say at all what you seem to think they do. In fact, they say pretty much what I did, that captured women became sex slaves of their captor, just given a month to get used to the idea.]]
Sorry- that is a gross misinterpretation of what was posted- Those commentators were educated in the customs of the times, and NOWHERE did you point out that they were allowed to have sex with captured women BEFORE the woman agreed to marry them- The jewish cutoms of that time were just as I explained to tax-chick for the man to keep the woman for a month, to see if she would be an agreeable woman or not0- then and only then would the man marry her BEFORE any sex was had- IF the woman decided she did NOT like the man she would remain an unagreeable woman, would NOT accept the Hebrew God, and would NOT obey Jewish cutsoms, and the man would NOT marry her-
[[which by our standards are appalling.]]
What part is appaling? The part where the woman decides if she wants to be agreeable and married to the man? Or the part where she, of her own free will decides she does NOT want to be agreeable and will not accept the Hebrew God, and will not make herself desireable so that the man decides she is not right for him in regards to legal marriage?
Doesn’t sound much different than dating today EXCEPT THAT the woman comes from a nation that was captured in war- and ALLOWED to live in servantude as a result of losing the war-
[[Daughters were “given” by their fathers to husbands, ]]
You are conveniently leaving out the fact that women did NOT have to marry the man they were given to, and you are conveniently leaving out the fact that many nations even today still follow this custom
Dt 21:10-11: Were female slaves raped?
The law explicitly condemned all of the following:
•Rape (Dt 22:25-27)
•Prostitution (23:17-18)
•Sex outside of marriage, whether consensual or not (Ex 22:16-17, Dt 22:28-29)
•Sex with a slave who was betrothed or married to someone else (Lev 19:20-22)
Therefore any forced intercourse would have been against both the letter and the spirit of the law.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/slavery_ot.html#rape
[[that the woman’s wishes in the matter need to be taken into consideration.]]
Sure there is- the woman could remain disagreeable, and the man who bought her would then NOT be obligated to take her as a wife- That was the ‘exception clause’ in most arrangements- And if the man rejected her because she was NOT agreeable, and did not accept the Hebrew God, nor accept Hebrew law, the man was to let her go and to be free of all obligations and debt-
and don’t forget, that the reason for ‘giving a daughter into marriage’ was for a better chance for the girl should she decide she wanted it
A person ‘buying’ a person for servanthood was a much different thing that chattel slavery of times past- the owner was NOT in possession of the person’s humanity, they were in possession of a ‘hire for lease’ situation where the person retained their personhood and had very specific rights and protections under the law- Even women and people captured in war had rights and protections and they did NOT have to be forced into marriage and could take steps to avoid it because the Hebrew person was bound by law to only marry certain women- ie women who accepted God, who denounced their pagan lifestyles, ad who were in agreement to the marriage-
and just onem ore point, for the record- marriage in the bible is a covenant and a covenant requires the consent and signatures of BOTH parties- meaning that the women taken in war had to consent to be married- had to find their debt holder desireable enough to want to marry, and of course also had to forsake their false gods, accept the Hebrew God, and to agree to follow Hebrew customs- She was however free to do NONE of these things, and if she did none of these, the Hebrew man was forbidden by God to enter into a marriage relationship with her (Although some ignored God’s orders and married foreign women who refused to give up their gods and refused to follow the Hebrew God- but to suggest that God condoned Hebrews taking women for the use of ‘sex-slaves’ and suggesting that marriage wasn’t the reason ignores historical facts and ignores God’s commandments all throughout His word- Fornication- Sex before marriage, was forbidden by God, and nowhere does He encourage or condone it- The accusation was that women taken in wartime were used as ‘sex-slaves’ and that God condoned such acts, but nowhere do we find God condoning it, nor do we find Hebrew men performing fornication- and looking at historical facts about the Hebrew culture of the time, We see just the opposite- and we see that a man would have to find the woman agreeable before he was allowed to marry her as per God’s orders
Nowhere in the OT is there, AFAIK, any reference to the consent of the woman being required to constitute a marriage. If you’re aware of such, I’d like to see it.
In the various passages discussing the taking of a female captive as wife, please show me where there’s the least implication that her consent is relevant.
Look, I realize it’s disturbing, and it is by our standards, but the Bible’s description of how women, in particular captive women, were treated is very nearly identical to how they are described in Homer and the Koran.
All your discussion of consent being required is simply not in the Bible. You are assuming it by projecting present practices back into the past. I realize that by the time of the Talmud being developed things were different, and probably this was the case by long before the time of Jesus. But there’s simply no evidence in the Bible itself, with all its discussion of marriage, that any importance was given to the consent of the woman.
Exodus 21:7 discusses a “father” selling his daughter into slavery. Her purchaser is pretty obviously going to use her for sex, if he so chooses, because if he later decides to give her to his son as a wife, he is required to no longer treat her as a slave (that is, have sex with her), but as a daughter, forbidden for sex. The female sold as a slave also did not go out free after six years as the male Israelite did. Her slavery and that of her children was for life.
All this was, as you have noted, part of how women were treated generally in the ancient world and utterly taken for granted. Marriage was not, as today, an exchange of vows between equals. It was simply a variant way of one man giving or selling a woman to another. A father could sell his daughter as a slave, or give her, for a price, as a wife. In neither case is there the slightest hint in the texts that the consent of the woman involved was considered relevant.
Yes, marriage was a covenant and a contract. But it was between the groom and her father. Not a hint of the woman’s consent being needed.
The Bible simply doesn’t say a captive woman had a right to refuse marriage to her captor. You are assuming that, without any evidence at all.
In the OT there is not a hint of fornication being forbidden to men, only to women, or even that there were any restrictions at all on the sex lives of men, other than to avoid adultery. Even adultery was not defined as a married man having sex with another woman, but only as any man having sex with a married woman. It was a violation of another man’s property rights.
Judah, a married man, possibly with multiple wives, had sex with Tamar, his widowed daughter-in-law who was disguised as a prostitute. When she turned up pregnant, he ordered her to be burned alive. She then pointed out that she was pregnant by him, and he acknowledged she was in the right. But there is not a hint of his admitting that he was in the wrong to commit (by our standards) adultery, only that he should have given her to another of his sons as a wife.
The equal status of men and women, and for that matter of all humans, imo evolved from the root concept of the Bible that we are all sons and daughters of God. No other society, after all, ever came up with such a ridiculous notion.
But that idea took a looonnnnggg time to evolve. It’s simply not found in the laws and customs described in the OT, and attempts to put it there are ahistorical.
I don’t, BTW, like this. But I do believe it’s a fact.
Judges 21, for example. Given that 1/3 of the tribes of Israel were descended from unfree concubines, this, like many other episodes in the early history, is completely consistent with enslavement practices in other parts of the ancient (and modern) world.
A slave concubine like Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah might get a status boost, however tenuous, from bearing a son to the master ... and so could a slave concubine in 1840s Georgia, especially if the child was light enough.
I am simply not persuades by the commentaries Bob434 is citing as authorities to claim that slavery by the people of Israel was categorically different from that of all other cultures, contemporaneous or future.
American slavery is in the modern mind “real” slavery, and whenever they talk about slavery in other cultures they turn flips trying to explain how that slavery was kinder and gentler.
Africa and Indian tribes, you see, didn’t practice real slavery. The onus of that is reseerved for white people, preferably Americans.
You’ve described the situation exactly.
Agree.
Sadly, there are parts of the OT that are simply indefensible to a modern POV.
Genocide, slavery, oppression of women, execution for apostasy.
But the other side of the story is that none, with the exception of the genocide stuff, were commanded in the Bible, while the principles taught in the Bible were eventually extrapolated to make all these things unacceptable.
Meanwhile, they are all central to Islam.
OK, messed that one up.
The execution for apostasy stuff was commanded in the Law.
When I'm teaching Sunday School, I say, "These people in the Bible did a lot of bad things ... and usually it turned out poorly for them. So learn not to do this kind of thing!"
To defend the position that any aspects of Old Testament life not explicitly condemned by Scripture must be "approved" requires a great deal of creativity. The contention that "We shouldn't do those bad things" is simply common sense.
Agree.
We have changed our attitudes, very largely because of the root principles of the Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.