Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2012 10:49:34 GMT -8
Issue No. 8 August, 1983
Slavery--The Indianapolis Star, one of the most conservative newspapers in the nation, has always quoted 2 cor. 3:17, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," on the front of each and every issue. Yet, if the Bible were, indeed, the Word of God, as apologists allege, it would be difficult to find a comment more at variance with the facts. All of the following verses show the God of the Bible sanctioned, indeed, instituted slavery--the absence of liberty.
"Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise (Deut. 15:17, KJV)."
(In order to minimize the Bible's support for slavery, the King James translators used "servant" instead of "slave" in this verse and others. The RSV translators used "bondman." Any knowledgeable authority knows slaves are being discussed, and several versions, e.g. the NWT and Living Bible, are honest enough to admit as much.)
But to continue:
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and you can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly ( Lev. 25:44-46, NIV)."
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (Ex. 21:20-21, NIV)."
"I (the Lord) will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away (Joel 3:8, NIV)"
(See also: Ex. 21:2-6, Deut. 15:12, 28:68, and Jer.27:8,12).
Apologists attempted to gloss over the situation by alleging these verses came from the God of the Old Testament and his laws, while the New Testament's God is supposedly one of love, liberty and compassion. If so, somebody forgot to tell Peter and Paul. The latter said:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men....(Eph. 6:5-7, NIV)."
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered (1 Tim. 6:1, NIV)."
"Slaves, obey your earthy masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord (Col. 3:22, NIV)."
"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,....(Titus 2:9, NIV)."
Paul not only sanctions slavery but equates serving one's master with serving God. To serve one faithfully is to serve the other faithfully. Peter agrees with Paul:
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your master with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also those who are harsh....Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:18,21, NIV)."
Clearly, according to the Bible, the spirit of the Lord has little to do with liberty. If they were inseparable, God wouldn't be supporting the slave masters. Confederate leaders during the Civil War were quite correct when they contended the Bible supported slavery. "...Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God--let him go to the Bible,.... I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation.... Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testament--in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere (Jefferson Davis by Rowland, Vol. I, p. 316-17)." The well-known reverend Alexander Campbell contended: "there is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." However, biblical support justifies nothing. Slavery was no more right in 2,000 B.C. than in 2,000 A.D. Morality has not changed that much, regardless of cultural difference and time differentials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise (Deut. 15:17, KJV)."
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and you can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly ( Lev. 25:44-46, NIV)."
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (Ex. 21:20-21, NIV)."
"I (the Lord) will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away (Joel 3:8, NIV)"
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men....(Eph. 6:5-7, NIV)."
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered (1 Tim. 6:1, NIV)."
"Slaves, obey your earthy masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord (Col. 3:22, NIV)."
"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,....(Titus 2:9, NIV)."
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your master with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also those who are harsh....Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:18,21, NIV)."
_____________________________________________________
Women--Any discussion of bondage and the Bible would be remiss if the Biblical role outlined for women was omitted. In both the Old and New Testaments women are assigned a position not appreciably different from that of domestic servants. Their status is demeaning, debilitating, and wholly incompatible with self-respect and confidence. Except for Mary, Eve, Ruth, Sarah, Rachel, and a few lesser figures, few biblical women have roles of significance, and even fewer are worthy of emulation. Eve, for example, is blamed for the creation of Original Sin. The Bible says as much: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim. 2:12-14, NIV)." Is it any wonder that women's groups oppose this narrative? With his usual wit, Ingersoll once observed: "...nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nothing but men (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p.358)." One of the saddest and most perplexing dilemmas one can experience in modern society is confronting women who strongly believe and defend a book that so clearly assigns them a degrading and subservient status. How do you reach those who are defending a philosophy that is so totally opposed to their interests? To use the vernacular, the Bible is sexist and permeated with male supremacy, as the following verses show only to well:
"...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16)."
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;.... (1 Cor. 11:3)."
"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (1 Cor. 11:9)."
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husband in every thing (Eph. 5:22-24)."
Anyone desiring more proof should read: Deut. 21:10-14, 24:1-4, Judges 5:30, Esther 1:20-22, Rom. 7:2, 1 Col. 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1, Lev. 12:2, 5, Gen. 3:20.
If these are not sufficient, there are more. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists try to soft-pedal the entire matter, but facts are stubborn things. It isn't just Paul, but the entire Bible that's guilty. Is it any wonder that feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of woman's emancipation (Free Thought Magazine, Vol. 14, 1896)." "I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women (Eight Years and More, Elizabeth C. Stanton, p. 395)." Not to be outdone, Ingersoll again displayed his wisdom by saying: "...it (the bible) is not the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book, for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a drudge, a kind of necessary evil--as mere property (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 12, p.43)." "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She is regarded as the property of man.... She is as much below her husband, as her husband is below Christ (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p. 396)." But, perhaps, George Foote made the most poignant comment of all: "It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible."
In closing, it should be noted that the Bible sanctions the subservience of woman far more than it sanctions the slavery of blacks. Indeed, although many verses support slavery, none clearly prescribes white dominance over blacks.
Paul, the Deceptive Disciple--If Paul wrote the Epistles, then no individual, other than Jesus, has had greater influence on the development of Christianity. Yet, his tendency to operate on expediency was unexcelled. He often made false statements, misquoted, and proved himself unworthy of trust. The following examples are only a fraction of those available. In 1 Cor. 2:8 Paul said: "Which none of the princes of this world know; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." What princes crucified Jesus? He was killed by a mob and some soldiers. In Col. 1:23 Paul said: "...from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister." Come now, Paul. At no time has every living person heard the gospel. Indeed, millions of people have come and gone without having had any contact whatever with the Bible. One of the great misquotes of Paul is found in Acts 20:35 where he says: "...ye ought to support the weak and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus make such a statement. Paul's oratory apparently got away from him.
Paul, like Jesus, often ignored his own advice. For example, in Rom. 12:14 he said: "Bless them which persecute you: bless and curse not." Yet, in Acts 23:3 he denounced someone by saying: "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall." In 1 Thess. 2:3 Paul says: "For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you." Yet, in 2 Cor. 12:16 he said: "Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery. In 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23 Paul says: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient." The allegedly moral Paul views himself as being a law unto himself. A different kind of problem is found in 1 Cor. 15:5, where Paul says: "And that he (Jesus) was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve." If true, this would mean there were 13 apostles, unless Peter was not an apostle. In 1 Cor. 10:8 Paul referred to a plague described in the Book of Numbers. He Stated: "...and fell in one day three and twenty thousand." Yet, Num. 25:9 clearly says the number was 24,000. "And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand (Numbers 25:9)."
Coping with Apologists--Although BE rarely goes outside the Bible to make observations, an occasional exception is warranted. Throughout the years I have noticed differing philosophies employed by those seeking to cope with defenders of the Bible. Generally speaking, they can be grouped into nine broad categories with some overlap. Each is worthy of note.
•The first approach involves seeking to smother biblicists with humor and ridicule by asking such questions as: Surely you don't believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, a donkey spoke, or a stick turned into a snake. How childish can one be!
•A second approach involves trying to alter beliefs by holding the Bible in contempt and its adherents worthy of profound pity. The problem with this tact is that biblicists respond in kind.
•The "bleeding heart" is the essence of the third approach, at least that is the label applied by the Bible's defenders. Its adherents make comments as: "How can you support, defend, and propound a book that has so much blood, gore, and immorality?" To this, the obvious and most common response is: "That's life, friend. The Bible deals with the real world."
•A fourth approach is not particularly effective either. Critics of the Bible will say, for example: "How can you support capital punishment when the Bible says, Thou shalt not kill?" Or, "How can you support warfare when the Bible says, love thy neighbor as thyself?" The Bible is made-to-order for criticisms of this sort. Everybody has heard the well-know maxim that you can prove anything you desire from the Bible. "...the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way one chooses to make it (The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, p. 196)." "It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible (The Age of Reason, Paine, p. 89)." One can easily find verses to justify capital punishment and warfare. The point is, it is difficult to take pot-shots at the Bible from a distance and hope to strike home. The more inconsistent a book is, the more it is able to cope with this tactic. And no book is more qualified than the Bible. It is truly unique in this respect.
•Scientific precision is the essence of the fifth strategy. Critics of the Bible attempt to compile so much data to disprove accounts, such as the Creation and Flood stories, that opponents are overwhelmed. Unquestionably, such information exists, but apologists have their "scientists" also. The Creation Research Society of California, for example, boasts of having 100 members with scientific degrees. But even more importantly, any reliance on extra-biblical evidence to disprove the Bible is doomed to failure. A fundamental aspect of the biblicist mentality is that no matter what information one can produce, no matter what data outside the Bible may show, if it contradicts that which is within, then it is false. And that is that!
•The core of a sixth approach to the Bible's defenders involves providing an alternative. Humanism, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism and so forth provide a far more rational view of the Bible. But why would biblicists accept another view of scripture when they are convinced they already have the truth? Why would someone abandon plan A and accept plan B when they have never been shown why plan A is erroneous?
•A seventh approach to biblicists entails a "live and let live" philosophy, as shown by: If I can't change them, then I'll just ignore their nonsense." The fatal flaw in this approach lies in the fact that there is no response-in-kind. Biblicists, such as the "Moral Majority," are constantly devoting large amounts of time, money, effort, and personnel to inject their philosophy into the schools, the laws, the courts, social agencies and so forth. You may want to leave them alone, but anyone acquainted with current church-state issues knows their assaults are never-ending. You either struggle and protect or lose and succumb. They are not going to leave you alone, regardless of what you do. Their evangelical thrust is incessant. Ingersoll aptly stated: "Churches are becoming political organizations.... It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, p. )." Ingersoll proved to be quite a prophet in light of the fact that that day has already arrived.
•An eighth approach, accepted by those who recognize the weakness of the seventh, involves unending court battles, legal struggles, constitutional decisions and popular pressures. Undoubtedly, if you can't change your opponents's mind or weaken his resolve, this is a viable alternative.
•A final strategem marks an attempt to solve the weakness in the sixth. If defenders of the Bible are not going to accept an alternative to the Bible until they first realize it's not inspired, then, logically, they must be shown its weaknesses. Biblical Errancy was created to fill this need, to reveal the nuts and bolts of biblical fallacies. It rarely goes outside the Bible for evidence; it doesn't make emotional appeals to the heart; it doesn't throw rocks at a distance; it doesn't propose an alternative; it doesn't laugh at or belittle the Bible and its defenders; it doesn't ignore the Bible's proponents or act as if they weren't a major force in society; it doesn't discount the opposition with pity and contempt; and lacking financial resources, it doesn't rely on the courts. Instead, BE goes within the Bible, makes comparisons, and draws conclusions. It seeks to know the Bible and work with apologists on their own turf. BE operates on the principle that more than enough information exists within the Book to undermine its foundation. The overriding problem with this approach, or any strategy appealing to rationality and common sense, however, is what do you do with those who say; "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with any facts"? What do you do with people who won't engage in any critical discussion of the Bible, whose minds are closed? When Jesus assumes control, many seem to enter another dimension, which is not so much a twilight zone as one of pure darkness.
In The Bible Has the Answer, apologist Henry Morris of the Creation Research Society in San Diego, California, attempted to justify the role assigned to women by the Bible. Never one to mince words, he confronted the issue head-on, by stating at the outset: "Some go so far as accusing the Bible of perpetuating female bondage through its archaic teachings. This unfortunate charge is ironic, for the Bible alone offers the only true freedom for women or men. While pagan cultures contemporary with Old Testament Israel treated women as the lowest form of chattel property, the Bible exalts women who found fulfillment in many ways. For instance, Hannah's life centered on her family (1 Sam. 1-2); Miriam excelled as a prophetess (Ex. 15:20); Deborah achieved greatness as a judge, military leader and poet (Judges 5); Esther successfully led her people through intriguing political conspiracies (Esther 4-7); and Naomi and Ruth sold real estate (Ruth4:3-9). Women aided in the defence of Thebez, an unnamed woman turned the tide of that battle against the wicked aggressor, Abimelech (Judges 9:50-55)." (The Bible has the Answer, Henry Morris, p. 239-240). The weakness of Morris's position lies in the fact that the individuals selected not only have minor roles in the overall biblical scheme of things, but have been inaccurately portrayed. The biblical descriptions associated with each of those cited don't exalt women as much as they describe their actions. Hannah was a maid. She wasn't exalted but merely wanted to become pregnant. Miriam didn't prophesy anything; she merely played a timbrel and sang (RSV). Deborah was a judge, but nowhere does it say she was out of the ordinary. She wasn't a military leader either; she merely gave some advice to one. Esther's role resembled that of a soap-opera heroine rather than a leader of her people. Naomi not only sold real estate, but sold Ruth as well! (This was an exceptionally poor example for Morris to chose). And the unnamed woman merely killed the attacking general; she didn't turn the tide of battle, like Samson with a jawbone. The groping-for-straws aspect of Morris's examples only highlights the rather pathetic portrayal of women by the Bible. Two of the most famous biblical women, Eve and Mary, are assigned less than commanding roles. Eve is given the distinction of having brought sin into the world, hardly a worthy role-model, while Mary was little more than a conduit for Jesus' entry. As this month's Commentary showed, there is no basis whatever for Morris's contention that "the Bible alone offers the only true freedom for women." Indeed, the evidence clearly proves the contrary. Can he produce one biblical verse that exalts or elevates womanhood per se, that is, without making the elevation dependent upon the performance of an act of subservience? Morris continues: "Furthermore, there are no distinctions of sex regarding salvation by faith in Christ or one's position before God (Ibid. p. 240)". Although the Bible doesn't appear to make a distinction between males and females with regard to who is "saved," it clearly makes a distinction with regard to one's gender before God. Morris attempts to downplay the force of Paul's admonitions by quoting 1 Cor. 11:3, which states: "Within the Christian home, the man is the head of the woman (Ibid. p. 240)." But 1 Cor. 11:3 says nothing about a home, Christian or otherwise. Male superiority is not restricted to home; males are superior as shown by: "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3)." Morris continues with: "Yet, the husband violates the Bible's instruction if he treats his wife as an inferior (Ibid. p.240)" and states this is found in 1 Cor. 11:11-12. In truth, the latter merely states man is born from a woman; nowhere is the husband told not to treat his wife as inferior. Morris's apologetic continues with an eye opener: "The wife has no less important or exalted a position than the husband, but hers is not as head of the home. Subjection, in Scripture, does not carry the connotation of inferiority (Ibid. p. 240)." How could subjection not mean inferiority? To prove this point, Morris quotes Eph. 5:22-25, which proves precisely the opposite! Wives are to be subject to their husbands: "the husband is head of his wife (Eph. 5:23)" clearly putting her in an inferior position. Morris then moves his apologetic to another defense with: "As in the home, so in the local church, women have a definable role (Ibid. p. 240)." It certainly couldn't amount to much in light of 1 Cor. 14:34, which says: "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak." Morris attributes their demotion to Eve's duplicity. "The prohibition against women in church leadership seems to come as a judicial result from Eve's complicity in the first sin in Eden (Ibid. p. 241)." In other words, women are being denied leadership roles today because of what Eve did years ago. The innocent are being punished for what an ancestor did long ago. Again shifting the focus, Morris states: "Some have even called Paul an antiquated sexist, and have implied that his teachings on women's roles reflect his own sexual insecurity and misinformation. Obviously, those making such charges have a very low view of Scripture (Ibid. p. 241)." Regardless of what view critics may have of Scripture, where are they wrong in this analysis? Unless Morris has evidence to the contrary, he should not laugh off this view. It could be correct. Morris concludes his apologetic with a comment that merits little serious consideration: "The Bible does not prohibit women from enjoying equal opportunity legally, socially, or economically, nor does the Bible require Christian women to be submissive to all men (Ibid. p. 242)." To this, one can only say, Don't be absurd, of course it does. "...women should feel perfect liberty to take positions of authority over men in professional, business, or social contexts (Ibid.)." Before making this statement Morris should have read 1 Tim. 2:12, which says: " permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent (RSV)." Virtually every aspect of Morris's apologetic is in direct opposition to biblical teachings.
A couple of readers questioned the use of "apologists," "apologetics." and "errancy." They should rest assured, however, that these are well-known terms in the realm of biblical analysis, and have not been manufactured by BE for pejorative purposes. Webster defines "apologetics" as: "the branch of theology having to do with the defense and proofs of Christianity", while an "apologist" is defined as "a person who writes or speaks in defense or justification of a doctrine." Both terms are appropriately followed by the word "apologize", which means to express regret for a fault, wrong, etc." Webster defines "errancy" as "the state or instance of erring, a tendency to err" while "inerrant" is defined as "making no mistakes; infallible." All three terms have been used for years. Indeed, Christian bookstores often have a section entitled "Apologetics" and a group of conservative biblical scholars calls their organization The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.
COMMENTARY
Slavery--The Indianapolis Star, one of the most conservative newspapers in the nation, has always quoted 2 cor. 3:17, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," on the front of each and every issue. Yet, if the Bible were, indeed, the Word of God, as apologists allege, it would be difficult to find a comment more at variance with the facts. All of the following verses show the God of the Bible sanctioned, indeed, instituted slavery--the absence of liberty.
"Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise (Deut. 15:17, KJV)."
(In order to minimize the Bible's support for slavery, the King James translators used "servant" instead of "slave" in this verse and others. The RSV translators used "bondman." Any knowledgeable authority knows slaves are being discussed, and several versions, e.g. the NWT and Living Bible, are honest enough to admit as much.)
But to continue:
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and you can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly ( Lev. 25:44-46, NIV)."
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (Ex. 21:20-21, NIV)."
"I (the Lord) will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away (Joel 3:8, NIV)"
(See also: Ex. 21:2-6, Deut. 15:12, 28:68, and Jer.27:8,12).
Apologists attempted to gloss over the situation by alleging these verses came from the God of the Old Testament and his laws, while the New Testament's God is supposedly one of love, liberty and compassion. If so, somebody forgot to tell Peter and Paul. The latter said:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men....(Eph. 6:5-7, NIV)."
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered (1 Tim. 6:1, NIV)."
"Slaves, obey your earthy masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord (Col. 3:22, NIV)."
"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,....(Titus 2:9, NIV)."
Paul not only sanctions slavery but equates serving one's master with serving God. To serve one faithfully is to serve the other faithfully. Peter agrees with Paul:
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your master with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also those who are harsh....Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:18,21, NIV)."
Clearly, according to the Bible, the spirit of the Lord has little to do with liberty. If they were inseparable, God wouldn't be supporting the slave masters. Confederate leaders during the Civil War were quite correct when they contended the Bible supported slavery. "...Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God--let him go to the Bible,.... I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation.... Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testament--in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere (Jefferson Davis by Rowland, Vol. I, p. 316-17)." The well-known reverend Alexander Campbell contended: "there is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." However, biblical support justifies nothing. Slavery was no more right in 2,000 B.C. than in 2,000 A.D. Morality has not changed that much, regardless of cultural difference and time differentials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise (Deut. 15:17, KJV)."
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and you can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly ( Lev. 25:44-46, NIV)."
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (Ex. 21:20-21, NIV)."
"I (the Lord) will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away (Joel 3:8, NIV)"
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men....(Eph. 6:5-7, NIV)."
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered (1 Tim. 6:1, NIV)."
"Slaves, obey your earthy masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord (Col. 3:22, NIV)."
"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,....(Titus 2:9, NIV)."
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your master with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also those who are harsh....Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:18,21, NIV)."
_____________________________________________________
Women--Any discussion of bondage and the Bible would be remiss if the Biblical role outlined for women was omitted. In both the Old and New Testaments women are assigned a position not appreciably different from that of domestic servants. Their status is demeaning, debilitating, and wholly incompatible with self-respect and confidence. Except for Mary, Eve, Ruth, Sarah, Rachel, and a few lesser figures, few biblical women have roles of significance, and even fewer are worthy of emulation. Eve, for example, is blamed for the creation of Original Sin. The Bible says as much: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim. 2:12-14, NIV)." Is it any wonder that women's groups oppose this narrative? With his usual wit, Ingersoll once observed: "...nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nothing but men (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p.358)." One of the saddest and most perplexing dilemmas one can experience in modern society is confronting women who strongly believe and defend a book that so clearly assigns them a degrading and subservient status. How do you reach those who are defending a philosophy that is so totally opposed to their interests? To use the vernacular, the Bible is sexist and permeated with male supremacy, as the following verses show only to well:
"...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16)."
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;.... (1 Cor. 11:3)."
"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (1 Cor. 11:9)."
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husband in every thing (Eph. 5:22-24)."
Anyone desiring more proof should read: Deut. 21:10-14, 24:1-4, Judges 5:30, Esther 1:20-22, Rom. 7:2, 1 Col. 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1, Lev. 12:2, 5, Gen. 3:20.
If these are not sufficient, there are more. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists try to soft-pedal the entire matter, but facts are stubborn things. It isn't just Paul, but the entire Bible that's guilty. Is it any wonder that feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of woman's emancipation (Free Thought Magazine, Vol. 14, 1896)." "I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women (Eight Years and More, Elizabeth C. Stanton, p. 395)." Not to be outdone, Ingersoll again displayed his wisdom by saying: "...it (the bible) is not the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book, for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a drudge, a kind of necessary evil--as mere property (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 12, p.43)." "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She is regarded as the property of man.... She is as much below her husband, as her husband is below Christ (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p. 396)." But, perhaps, George Foote made the most poignant comment of all: "It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible."
In closing, it should be noted that the Bible sanctions the subservience of woman far more than it sanctions the slavery of blacks. Indeed, although many verses support slavery, none clearly prescribes white dominance over blacks.
Paul, the Deceptive Disciple--If Paul wrote the Epistles, then no individual, other than Jesus, has had greater influence on the development of Christianity. Yet, his tendency to operate on expediency was unexcelled. He often made false statements, misquoted, and proved himself unworthy of trust. The following examples are only a fraction of those available. In 1 Cor. 2:8 Paul said: "Which none of the princes of this world know; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." What princes crucified Jesus? He was killed by a mob and some soldiers. In Col. 1:23 Paul said: "...from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister." Come now, Paul. At no time has every living person heard the gospel. Indeed, millions of people have come and gone without having had any contact whatever with the Bible. One of the great misquotes of Paul is found in Acts 20:35 where he says: "...ye ought to support the weak and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus make such a statement. Paul's oratory apparently got away from him.
Paul, like Jesus, often ignored his own advice. For example, in Rom. 12:14 he said: "Bless them which persecute you: bless and curse not." Yet, in Acts 23:3 he denounced someone by saying: "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall." In 1 Thess. 2:3 Paul says: "For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you." Yet, in 2 Cor. 12:16 he said: "Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery. In 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23 Paul says: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient." The allegedly moral Paul views himself as being a law unto himself. A different kind of problem is found in 1 Cor. 15:5, where Paul says: "And that he (Jesus) was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve." If true, this would mean there were 13 apostles, unless Peter was not an apostle. In 1 Cor. 10:8 Paul referred to a plague described in the Book of Numbers. He Stated: "...and fell in one day three and twenty thousand." Yet, Num. 25:9 clearly says the number was 24,000. "And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand (Numbers 25:9)."
Coping with Apologists--Although BE rarely goes outside the Bible to make observations, an occasional exception is warranted. Throughout the years I have noticed differing philosophies employed by those seeking to cope with defenders of the Bible. Generally speaking, they can be grouped into nine broad categories with some overlap. Each is worthy of note.
•The first approach involves seeking to smother biblicists with humor and ridicule by asking such questions as: Surely you don't believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, a donkey spoke, or a stick turned into a snake. How childish can one be!
•A second approach involves trying to alter beliefs by holding the Bible in contempt and its adherents worthy of profound pity. The problem with this tact is that biblicists respond in kind.
•The "bleeding heart" is the essence of the third approach, at least that is the label applied by the Bible's defenders. Its adherents make comments as: "How can you support, defend, and propound a book that has so much blood, gore, and immorality?" To this, the obvious and most common response is: "That's life, friend. The Bible deals with the real world."
•A fourth approach is not particularly effective either. Critics of the Bible will say, for example: "How can you support capital punishment when the Bible says, Thou shalt not kill?" Or, "How can you support warfare when the Bible says, love thy neighbor as thyself?" The Bible is made-to-order for criticisms of this sort. Everybody has heard the well-know maxim that you can prove anything you desire from the Bible. "...the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way one chooses to make it (The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, p. 196)." "It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible (The Age of Reason, Paine, p. 89)." One can easily find verses to justify capital punishment and warfare. The point is, it is difficult to take pot-shots at the Bible from a distance and hope to strike home. The more inconsistent a book is, the more it is able to cope with this tactic. And no book is more qualified than the Bible. It is truly unique in this respect.
•Scientific precision is the essence of the fifth strategy. Critics of the Bible attempt to compile so much data to disprove accounts, such as the Creation and Flood stories, that opponents are overwhelmed. Unquestionably, such information exists, but apologists have their "scientists" also. The Creation Research Society of California, for example, boasts of having 100 members with scientific degrees. But even more importantly, any reliance on extra-biblical evidence to disprove the Bible is doomed to failure. A fundamental aspect of the biblicist mentality is that no matter what information one can produce, no matter what data outside the Bible may show, if it contradicts that which is within, then it is false. And that is that!
•The core of a sixth approach to the Bible's defenders involves providing an alternative. Humanism, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism and so forth provide a far more rational view of the Bible. But why would biblicists accept another view of scripture when they are convinced they already have the truth? Why would someone abandon plan A and accept plan B when they have never been shown why plan A is erroneous?
•A seventh approach to biblicists entails a "live and let live" philosophy, as shown by: If I can't change them, then I'll just ignore their nonsense." The fatal flaw in this approach lies in the fact that there is no response-in-kind. Biblicists, such as the "Moral Majority," are constantly devoting large amounts of time, money, effort, and personnel to inject their philosophy into the schools, the laws, the courts, social agencies and so forth. You may want to leave them alone, but anyone acquainted with current church-state issues knows their assaults are never-ending. You either struggle and protect or lose and succumb. They are not going to leave you alone, regardless of what you do. Their evangelical thrust is incessant. Ingersoll aptly stated: "Churches are becoming political organizations.... It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, p. )." Ingersoll proved to be quite a prophet in light of the fact that that day has already arrived.
•An eighth approach, accepted by those who recognize the weakness of the seventh, involves unending court battles, legal struggles, constitutional decisions and popular pressures. Undoubtedly, if you can't change your opponents's mind or weaken his resolve, this is a viable alternative.
•A final strategem marks an attempt to solve the weakness in the sixth. If defenders of the Bible are not going to accept an alternative to the Bible until they first realize it's not inspired, then, logically, they must be shown its weaknesses. Biblical Errancy was created to fill this need, to reveal the nuts and bolts of biblical fallacies. It rarely goes outside the Bible for evidence; it doesn't make emotional appeals to the heart; it doesn't throw rocks at a distance; it doesn't propose an alternative; it doesn't laugh at or belittle the Bible and its defenders; it doesn't ignore the Bible's proponents or act as if they weren't a major force in society; it doesn't discount the opposition with pity and contempt; and lacking financial resources, it doesn't rely on the courts. Instead, BE goes within the Bible, makes comparisons, and draws conclusions. It seeks to know the Bible and work with apologists on their own turf. BE operates on the principle that more than enough information exists within the Book to undermine its foundation. The overriding problem with this approach, or any strategy appealing to rationality and common sense, however, is what do you do with those who say; "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with any facts"? What do you do with people who won't engage in any critical discussion of the Bible, whose minds are closed? When Jesus assumes control, many seem to enter another dimension, which is not so much a twilight zone as one of pure darkness.
REVIEWS
In The Bible Has the Answer, apologist Henry Morris of the Creation Research Society in San Diego, California, attempted to justify the role assigned to women by the Bible. Never one to mince words, he confronted the issue head-on, by stating at the outset: "Some go so far as accusing the Bible of perpetuating female bondage through its archaic teachings. This unfortunate charge is ironic, for the Bible alone offers the only true freedom for women or men. While pagan cultures contemporary with Old Testament Israel treated women as the lowest form of chattel property, the Bible exalts women who found fulfillment in many ways. For instance, Hannah's life centered on her family (1 Sam. 1-2); Miriam excelled as a prophetess (Ex. 15:20); Deborah achieved greatness as a judge, military leader and poet (Judges 5); Esther successfully led her people through intriguing political conspiracies (Esther 4-7); and Naomi and Ruth sold real estate (Ruth4:3-9). Women aided in the defence of Thebez, an unnamed woman turned the tide of that battle against the wicked aggressor, Abimelech (Judges 9:50-55)." (The Bible has the Answer, Henry Morris, p. 239-240). The weakness of Morris's position lies in the fact that the individuals selected not only have minor roles in the overall biblical scheme of things, but have been inaccurately portrayed. The biblical descriptions associated with each of those cited don't exalt women as much as they describe their actions. Hannah was a maid. She wasn't exalted but merely wanted to become pregnant. Miriam didn't prophesy anything; she merely played a timbrel and sang (RSV). Deborah was a judge, but nowhere does it say she was out of the ordinary. She wasn't a military leader either; she merely gave some advice to one. Esther's role resembled that of a soap-opera heroine rather than a leader of her people. Naomi not only sold real estate, but sold Ruth as well! (This was an exceptionally poor example for Morris to chose). And the unnamed woman merely killed the attacking general; she didn't turn the tide of battle, like Samson with a jawbone. The groping-for-straws aspect of Morris's examples only highlights the rather pathetic portrayal of women by the Bible. Two of the most famous biblical women, Eve and Mary, are assigned less than commanding roles. Eve is given the distinction of having brought sin into the world, hardly a worthy role-model, while Mary was little more than a conduit for Jesus' entry. As this month's Commentary showed, there is no basis whatever for Morris's contention that "the Bible alone offers the only true freedom for women." Indeed, the evidence clearly proves the contrary. Can he produce one biblical verse that exalts or elevates womanhood per se, that is, without making the elevation dependent upon the performance of an act of subservience? Morris continues: "Furthermore, there are no distinctions of sex regarding salvation by faith in Christ or one's position before God (Ibid. p. 240)". Although the Bible doesn't appear to make a distinction between males and females with regard to who is "saved," it clearly makes a distinction with regard to one's gender before God. Morris attempts to downplay the force of Paul's admonitions by quoting 1 Cor. 11:3, which states: "Within the Christian home, the man is the head of the woman (Ibid. p. 240)." But 1 Cor. 11:3 says nothing about a home, Christian or otherwise. Male superiority is not restricted to home; males are superior as shown by: "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3)." Morris continues with: "Yet, the husband violates the Bible's instruction if he treats his wife as an inferior (Ibid. p.240)" and states this is found in 1 Cor. 11:11-12. In truth, the latter merely states man is born from a woman; nowhere is the husband told not to treat his wife as inferior. Morris's apologetic continues with an eye opener: "The wife has no less important or exalted a position than the husband, but hers is not as head of the home. Subjection, in Scripture, does not carry the connotation of inferiority (Ibid. p. 240)." How could subjection not mean inferiority? To prove this point, Morris quotes Eph. 5:22-25, which proves precisely the opposite! Wives are to be subject to their husbands: "the husband is head of his wife (Eph. 5:23)" clearly putting her in an inferior position. Morris then moves his apologetic to another defense with: "As in the home, so in the local church, women have a definable role (Ibid. p. 240)." It certainly couldn't amount to much in light of 1 Cor. 14:34, which says: "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak." Morris attributes their demotion to Eve's duplicity. "The prohibition against women in church leadership seems to come as a judicial result from Eve's complicity in the first sin in Eden (Ibid. p. 241)." In other words, women are being denied leadership roles today because of what Eve did years ago. The innocent are being punished for what an ancestor did long ago. Again shifting the focus, Morris states: "Some have even called Paul an antiquated sexist, and have implied that his teachings on women's roles reflect his own sexual insecurity and misinformation. Obviously, those making such charges have a very low view of Scripture (Ibid. p. 241)." Regardless of what view critics may have of Scripture, where are they wrong in this analysis? Unless Morris has evidence to the contrary, he should not laugh off this view. It could be correct. Morris concludes his apologetic with a comment that merits little serious consideration: "The Bible does not prohibit women from enjoying equal opportunity legally, socially, or economically, nor does the Bible require Christian women to be submissive to all men (Ibid. p. 242)." To this, one can only say, Don't be absurd, of course it does. "...women should feel perfect liberty to take positions of authority over men in professional, business, or social contexts (Ibid.)." Before making this statement Morris should have read 1 Tim. 2:12, which says: " permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent (RSV)." Virtually every aspect of Morris's apologetic is in direct opposition to biblical teachings.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
A couple of readers questioned the use of "apologists," "apologetics." and "errancy." They should rest assured, however, that these are well-known terms in the realm of biblical analysis, and have not been manufactured by BE for pejorative purposes. Webster defines "apologetics" as: "the branch of theology having to do with the defense and proofs of Christianity", while an "apologist" is defined as "a person who writes or speaks in defense or justification of a doctrine." Both terms are appropriately followed by the word "apologize", which means to express regret for a fault, wrong, etc." Webster defines "errancy" as "the state or instance of erring, a tendency to err" while "inerrant" is defined as "making no mistakes; infallible." All three terms have been used for years. Indeed, Christian bookstores often have a section entitled "Apologetics" and a group of conservative biblical scholars calls their organization The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.