Thread: Did Joseph use slaves? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029186
Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on
:
And if so, how did he treat them? The pyramids were built in a society with endless amounts of oppression - how could any power be used for good in a system so built on evil?
When Joseph resisted the temptation of Potifar's wife, he lost power that could have been used for good in order to avoid committing a personal sin - but how much potential good would outweigh the actual evil of his adultery, if seen as a trade of goodness?
To what extent can any good individual seek power, when power itself is often vested in corrupt systems? Or should the good always stay away from power, or be completely indifferent to whether it is there or not? The Bible's statesmen (Daniel, Joseph, David) clearly didn't shy away from powerful positions, but how should one value the trade-off of using power in evil systems versus one's ability to achieve good by doing so?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Surely Abraham had slaves?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You do the best you can.
I doubt Joseph thought much about slavery as an institution--he was born into a culture where slavery was a given, and it's a rare person who rises above that. We know that in other moral situations Joseph showed himself to be, well, a man of his times. (I'm thinking here about how he basically enslaved all of Egypt to Pharaoh in return for grain.) The Bible doesn't hold up characters like Joseph as 100% pure moral heroes--rather it shows us what they did, and leaves us to make most of the moral judgements.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
As so often, Lamb Chopped has got it right.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Surely Abraham had slaves?
Haggar was probably essentially a slave, which makes the Haggar narrative all the more troubling if you're looking for Abraham to be any sort of moral example. Thankfully, as Lamb already pointed out, that doesn't appear to be the point of the story.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Joseph was a man of his time. It would be just as reasonable to ask why (since it was clearly employee harassment) he didn't email HR about Potiphar's wife, and then file a class-action lawsuit. We are all people of our time. Like fish -- unaware of the water all around us.
It is useful to think of what our great-great grandchildren might think about us. "How could Gram use plastic water bottles/drive a gasoline-powered car/eat swordfish/vote for Scottish independence/support fracking? Everybody knows that [bad effect of it here]."
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Surely Abraham had slaves?
Haggar was probably essentially a slave, which makes the Haggar narrative all the more troubling if you're looking for Abraham to be any sort of moral example. Thankfully, as Lamb already pointed out, that doesn't appear to be the point of the story.
Actually, I think one of the points of The Story is that our ancestors in faith—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, and on and on—were not paragons of morality or virtue. They were flawed, sinful people, just like all the rest of us. And yet God made, and kept, a covenant with them.
It underscores the whole idea of grace; there's certainly nothing to indicate they earned God's favor. None of them always got it right. Yet God looked favorably on them and blessed them, so there's hope for us as well.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
What Brenda said. We have to be careful we don't find ourselves saying what amounts to, "How DARE he not have been 3000 years ahead of his time?!"
Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on
:
My problem, as expressed in my OP, is not so much in that Joseph (or Abraham or any others) used or owned slaves as in the compromises of conscience the general behaviour must have required. How does one prioritise what evils to condone or accept when attempting to stem others, and can good people at all seek the power to make such judgments, even in knowing how dirty the road to power is? (and must have inevitably been in the despotic states of Babylon or Egypt)
Joseph prioritised non-adultery over the potential power he would have as Potifar's head servant. However, he must have prioritised other evils, such as not just slavery but accepting excessively harsh treatment of said slaves, less than the potential good coming from the power of being Pharaoh's second in command. Where does one draw the line for what to prioritise and what to trade off for what else?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Or…
Joseph refused adultery as the price of being Potiphar's second in command and was rewarded with becoming Pharaoh's second in command.
Once he had that power, do we have any idea (one way or the other) about what he did about the institution of slavery?
[ 05. June 2015, 17:04: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Responding to the overall question of the OP, sometimes the option of overturning a societal structure which embeds injustice may not be available to an individual (even to a Joseph). Paul's letter to Philemon offers one possible way forward - to subvert the structure by operating it humanely. So neither Philemon nor Paul campaigns to abolish slavery. Rather Paul asks Philemon to subvert it by treating Onesimus not as a possession, but as brother.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes. You don't have to defeat an enemy by strength of arms. You can change him into your friend.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Once he had that power, do we have any idea (one way or the other) about what he did about the institution of slavery?
We know* that at the end of his 14 years, the people that owned their own farms were now working Pharaoh's cattle on Pharaoh's farms,.
(though the effect was only the same as 20% tax**)
On the other hand they were alive.
In the words of Genesis 47:25 "We will become Pharaoh's servants."
And the account vague about some of the details that make a lot of difference to the outcomes. So it could mean a lot of things.
We know he had 'stewards' of his house, but again that covers a multitude of options
*for appropriate definitions of know.
**but again that could cover a range of outcomes.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
[ 05. June 2015, 18:37: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
If Joseph didn't exist - I think he is a representative figure a bit less real than Robin Hood, about the same as King Arthur, and a bit more real than Britannia - does that change things? Are an idealised symbolic person's moral failings significant? I suppose I think they are, though whose fault they are is tricky to say.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
(Hm, on reflection I may possibly have misjudged my tone in my last post. Especially as Lamb Chopped made the same point very early in the thread.)
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If Joseph didn't exist - I think he is a representative figure a bit less real than Robin Hood, about the same as King Arthur, and a bit more real than Britannia - does that change things? Are an idealised symbolic person's moral failings significant? I suppose I think they are, though whose fault they are is tricky to say.
I would say they are more significant. If Gildas represents Vortigern as a bastard, that may not reflect anything more significant than that Vortigern was a bastard. But if you are writing fiction, then you can choose whether or not your protagonists are bastards or not, and so the fact that the writer of the Pentateuch decided to make Joseph a nasty piece of work, when they could have made him a paragon of virtue, is significant of something.
(Given that the rest of the Old Testament sees slavery in Egypt as emblematic of A Very Bad Thing Indeed, I don't think we are intended to see Joseph's actions in Genesis 47 as anything other than blameworthy.)
[ 05. June 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But if you are writing fiction, then you can choose whether or not your protagonists are bastards or not, and so the fact that the writer of the Pentateuch decided to make Joseph a nasty piece of work, when they could have made him a paragon of virtue, is significant of something.
But even if Joseph is not historical, that doesn't mean that the scriptural account of him is fiction, at least not what we think of as fiction. I would say it's myth, and myth operates differently from fiction.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Surely Abraham had slaves?
Haggar was probably essentially a slave, which makes the Haggar narrative all the more troubling if you're looking for Abraham to be any sort of moral example. Thankfully, as Lamb already pointed out, that doesn't appear to be the point of the story.
Actually, I think one of the points of The Story is that our ancestors in faith—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, and on and on—were not paragons of morality or virtue. They were flawed, sinful people, just like all the rest of us. And yet God made, and kept, a covenant with them.
Yes. That's the point I-- and Lamb-- were making.
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Given that the rest of the Old Testament sees slavery in Egypt as emblematic of A Very Bad Thing Indeed, I don't think we are intended to see Joseph's actions in Genesis 47 as anything other than blameworthy.)
However much of the rest of the Old Testament has no issue with slavery as a concept, but is concerned with how it operates.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I am under the impression that in the OT slavery is very very bad indeed when it is me. When it is other people, not so much.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What we are intended to see is the startling transcendent beauty of the powerful, moving story of humane wisdom and love breaking out in the Bronze Age. What on Earth is blameworthy about that? Or anything else of the time?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Given that the rest of the Old Testament sees slavery in Egypt as emblematic of A Very Bad Thing Indeed, I don't think we are intended to see Joseph's actions in Genesis 47 as anything other than blameworthy.)
However much of the rest of the Old Testament has no issue with slavery as a concept, but is concerned with how it operates.
Sure. If Genesis had just mentioned in passing that Joseph had slaves, the comments about 'man of his time' would apply. My feeling though is that Genesis 47 describes Joseph doing something that even the rest of the Old Testament would have a problem with.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Why do you feel that? I never did when I was a fundamentalist and now I'm a postmodern liberal I couldn't either.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
He enslaved the Egyptians, not the Israelites.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Given that the rest of the Old Testament sees slavery in Egypt as emblematic of A Very Bad Thing Indeed, I don't think we are intended to see Joseph's actions in Genesis 47 as anything other than blameworthy.)
However much of the rest of the Old Testament has no issue with slavery as a concept, but is concerned with how it operates.
Sure. If Genesis had just mentioned in passing that Joseph had slaves, the comments about 'man of his time' would apply. My feeling though is that Genesis 47 describes Joseph doing something that even the rest of the Old Testament would have a problem with.
I would say that it's far from clear that the OT has a "problem" with slavery itself, either of Hebrews or foreigners.
Exodus 21 has God giving some specific instructions on how to treat Hebrew slaves, including this:
quote:
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.
By way of contrast, a few verses earlier we have
quote:
17 “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
It seems to me that if God really had a problem with slavery as such, this would have been a singularly good opportunity to say something about it to his chosen people, particularly since he had just reminded them that he was the one who brought them "out of the house of bondage" in Egypt (Exodus 20:2).
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The Old Testament doesn't have an opinion on this or that subject. It's a compendium of voices. And only the most naive or fundamentalist views Old or New Testament as the means by which God lets God's mind be known, as if it was a court circular or set of press releases.
Biblical books contradict each other. You can even track moral trajectories through them. They are evidence for the development of moral ideas and for the changing understanding of God.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And only the most naive or fundamentalist views Old or New Testament as the means by which God lets God's mind be known, as if it was a court circular or set of press releases.
Stripped of the ridicule of the phrase "as if it was a court circular or set of press releases", isn't "the means by which God lets God's mind be known" a pretty historically mainstream way of viewing the Bible?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Not an uncommon view, but an unsophisticated one. The idea that God wrote the Bible is, I hope, still one that churches help people to grow out of.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yep, unsophisticated, that's me.
Seriously, folks? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Since it's been brought up, and people are running with it, I'll say what I've said elsewhere. The OT law never claims to be a statement of God's perfect will for human beings. What it is, is a statement of God's directions for Israel at a particular time in their history--namely, a time when they had just come out of a centuries' long slavery and had to re-invent themselves as a people with a culture and government of their own (preferably not borrowed from idolatrous Egypt). God was giving them a foundation for that re-creation, and very sensible of him, too. (The result of losing one's culture and history can be seen today in the US with many descendants of African slaves--modern poverty, crime, family breakdown, and so forth. If you do that shit to people, their descendants are likely to suffer as well, and it takes some doing to recover from it.)
Anyway--God is answering the question, "How should we live now that we are free Israel under one God and no longer Egyptian slaves?" His answer is NOT to require moral perfection across the board. Jesus himself makes it clear that the Law was an accommodation to the limits of the people when he discusses divorce and says "Moses gave you that law because of the hardness of your hearts, but it was not so from the beginning..." So the Law is a halfway point, not God's perfect vision of what humanity should be.
As a result, you get a lot of laws that we are currently indignant about because to our minds (in this 2000 years post-Christ world) they don't go far enough. Why regulate treatment of slaves? Why not abolish it entirely? Why regulate divorce and not abolish it? Why allow marriage as one option for rape reparations? Why not just nuke the bastard?
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it. Consider slavery: if Israel had abolished it, they would have been the one hold out in the known world, AFAIK. They would also have had to figure out a way to cope with prisoners of war/conquered civilians and with debtors, since the normal way of dealing with such people was enslavement. Slavery is not an ideal answer (duh) but is it more humane to turn entire populations out to starve? Which is essentially what you'd be doing if most of the men are dead or disabled (since the heavy agricultural work falls to them). How in the world do you handle bankruptcy in a pre-modern society? Or take marriage. We all know just how well forcing people to stay together works even today, after 2000 years of Christianity. How should it work better back then? That thing about giving a woman the option of marrying her rapist. Well, in a patriarchal society (were there any other kinds in the Middle East?) he has done her irrevocable economic damage; marriage was the only career for a woman, and he has just removed most of her chances at a decent marriage. Therefore the OT offers her (NOT him) the choice of accepting a lump sum financial settlement, or else forcing him to marry her without possibility of divorce. (Yes, the transaction was handled through her father--not because rape is of more concern to a father than to the woman raped, but because EVERY transaction was handled that way in a patriarchal society. It doesn't mean she's her father's property. Sheesh.)
Do you see what I'm driving at? The OT Law was not meant to be a perfect example of the Good. It was meant to be an example of the Better. Better than Israel's inherited current practices, which involved unregulated slavery, divorce, and justice issues, with all the horrible abuses that come from lack of boundaries.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it.
They were ready for stoning as a punishment for cursing their parents, but not for a prohibition on beating their slaves to death?
I find it hard to reconcile the endorsement of the view that a slave is his owner's money - words put in God's mouth - with the idea that this (perhaps) somewhat less savage version of slavery is really the best God could do at the time.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Not an uncommon view, but an unsophisticated one. The idea that God wrote the Bible is, I hope, still one that churches help people to grow out of.
Saying that the OT and the NT are means by which God makesGod's will known to humanity is not the same as saying that God wrote or dictated them.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Not an uncommon view, but an unsophisticated one. The idea that God wrote the Bible is, I hope, still one that churches help people to grow out of.
Saying that the OT and the NT are means by which God makesGod's will known to humanity is not the same as saying that God wrote or dictated them.
That's true, but on this thread people have been reading the OT as if it's God's own words and final thoughts.
A more nuanced view of inspiration, and a clearer historical sense would make a big difference to the discussion.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
When I read the title, I immediately thought of Joseph, Jesus' (foster-) dad. And I thought, "Hm. Interesting. I doubt he'd have been sufficiently well off, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't think, 'Dang, I could do with a slave or two around the place'."
And then I realised it was the other Joseph, and I thought, of course he did. Why wouldn't he? An Egyptian civil servant would have given no more thought to using slaves than I would give to using a food processor.
This is one of the reasons that Christians must grow beyond the Bible - it took us a long time to figure out that buying and selling people is wrong.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Genesis had just mentioned in passing that Joseph had slaves, the comments about 'man of his time' would apply. My feeling though is that Genesis 47 describes Joseph doing something that even the rest of the Old Testament would have a problem with.
I would say that it's far from clear that the OT has a "problem" with slavery itself, either of Hebrews or foreigners.
Yes, that's my point. If Joseph had simply kept slaves, either Hebrew or Gentile, he would have been a man of his time, with all that entails.
But at every single instance outside Genesis, where slavery in Egypt is mentioned, it's representative of 'the really bad thing that God rescued you from'. And Joseph is the one who's responsible for it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it.
They were ready for stoning as a punishment for cursing their parents, but not for a prohibition on beating their slaves to death?
I find it hard to reconcile the endorsement of the view that a slave is his owner's money - words put in God's mouth - with the idea that this (perhaps) somewhat less savage version of slavery is really the best God could do at the time.
There IS a prohibition against beating your slave to death.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Two things.
First, Joseph rescued the Israelites from famine. It was a Pharaoh later who did not know (i.e. remember) Joseph who enslaved them.
Second, the kings of Judah continued to have more than one wife at least down to the exile. That doesn't mean it's OK for us. Likewise, if Israelites had slaves, it doesn't mean slavery is OK, or that we can.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is also worth looking at the historical context. The OT slavery regs were in fact amazingly liberal and humane.
Compare to Roman law about slaves. If you were a roman and owned a slave, you owned him or her body and soul. You could have sex with them, or lend them to friends. You could pimp them out and accept money for their sexual services. Every product of their body was yours -- there are records of slave owners cutting off their slaves' hair to sell to wig makers, and of course the child of your slave is a slave that you can sell in the market. Killing your slave was like the way you can have your dog put down today. when your slave became too old to work, or ill or injured, you could dump him in the street and bang the door.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it.
They were ready for stoning as a punishment for cursing their parents, but not for a prohibition on beating their slaves to death?
I find it hard to reconcile the endorsement of the view that a slave is his owner's money - words put in God's mouth - with the idea that this (perhaps) somewhat less savage version of slavery is really the best God could do at the time.
There IS a prohibition against beating your slave to death.
There ISN'T a blanket prohibition - if he lingers three days before dying, you're in the clear! (The killing of non-slaves (v. 12) makes no such allowance.)
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But at every single instance outside Genesis, where slavery in Egypt is mentioned, it's representative of 'the really bad thing that God rescued you from'. And Joseph is the one who's responsible for it.
Yes, that particular incidence of slavery was unpleasant for the Hebrews - though still not necessarily bad because slavery is morally wrong. God isn't bothered by other instances; the helpful provision of rules delineating just how badly a master can treat his slaves suggests he doesn't have a principled objection to it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is also worth looking at the historical context. The OT slavery regs were in fact amazingly liberal and humane.
Compare to Roman law about slaves. If you were a roman and owned a slave, you owned him or her body and soul. You could have sex with them, or lend them to friends. You could pimp them out and accept money for their sexual services. Every product of their body was yours -- there are records of slave owners cutting off their slaves' hair to sell to wig makers, and of course the child of your slave is a slave that you can sell in the market. Killing your slave was like the way you can have your dog put down today. when your slave became too old to work, or ill or injured, you could dump him in the street and bang the door.
This works as long as you take the OT to be a mixture of divine and human-- which I have come to do, despite my evangelical creds. If you think of the OT as a perfect, infallible reflection of God's will (even if just for Israel as some try to parse it) you're going to have a hard time justifying what you find there about slavery, treatment of women, a whole host of things. But if you think of it as a reflection of imperfect humans living in an imperfect society encountering the perfect God, it's a lot easier to take the pov you're suggesting. If you see it as imperfect humans living in a society where slavery is just part of the way things are, then it works to see God working slowly over time to reveal himself and a more humane way of considering other human beings. But that is challenging to even admit out loud for those of it from more conservative lineage (though most of us act as if that's the case even if we don't admit it).
And, of course, a more nuanced reading of OT laws that allows for human imperfection may also occasion a rethinking of some dead horse issues...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
A mix of 110% human and 0.1% divine.
And cliffdweller, is there anything that could have happened in the second Planck tick that would have changed that for the better?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
He enslaved the Egyptians, not the Israelites.
...
Ok, I look stupid now.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it.
They were ready for stoning as a punishment for cursing their parents, but not for a prohibition on beating their slaves to death?
I find it hard to reconcile the endorsement of the view that a slave is his owner's money - words put in God's mouth - with the idea that this (perhaps) somewhat less savage version of slavery is really the best God could do at the time.
There IS a prohibition against beating your slave to death.
Well, yeah, if the slave died immediately. According to Exodus 21:20 it was only a legal problem if the slave did not survive for at least two days after the beating. After that it was just considered an intrinsic economic loss to the owner, that is lost "money". Not a punishable offense.
Again:
quote:
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yes; and that section does bother me.
It's perhaps the one point in the whole OT where I would come closest to agreeing with you and calling this merely human. And yet, given the overall tenor of the OT, I cannot.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes; and that section does bother me.
It's perhaps the one point in the whole OT where I would come closest to agreeing with you and calling this merely human. And yet, given the overall tenor of the OT, I cannot.
You're good with the conquest of Canaan then?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I didn't say I was good with it. I have a lot of questions about it.
I do say that I see enough to take the rest on faith. YMMV, of course.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
How?
That He'll somehow be able to explain being God the Killer?
With the kind of 'rationalizations' I used to come up with? As in, life before death doesn't matter?
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
He enslaved the Egyptians, not the Israelites.
...
Ok, I look stupid now.
Not really. A completely innocent mistake, I would have thought.
I was in a Bible study about Joseph recently where the leader pointed out how "astute" Joseph had been in making his boss, Pharaoh, the owner of all Egypt, and of all Egyptians. So it was something I was particularly conscious of.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How?
That He'll somehow be able to explain being God the Killer?
With the kind of 'rationalizations' I used to come up with? As in, life before death doesn't matter?
I have no idea what rationalizations you used to come up with, bar the one you quote, which is horrid. Please don't judge my own faith by that.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
He enslaved the Egyptians, not the Israelites.
...
Ok, I look stupid now.
Not really. A completely innocent mistake, I would have thought.
I was in a Bible study about Joseph recently where the leader pointed out how "astute" Joseph had been in making his boss, Pharaoh, the owner of all Egypt, and of all Egyptians. So it was something I was particularly conscious of.
While "astute" is one way to describe using a national crisis, in this case a famine, to consolidate power and establish a dictatorship, which is what we see described in that chapter of Genesis, there are other, less flattering ways to describe that kind of behavior. Like "using a national crisis to establish a dictatorship". Whatever Joseph's opinions on the institution of chattel slavery, he obviously wasn't big on the idea of freedom.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm judging nothing LC. I can't. I don't know what you believe. Do you believe in God the Killer as revealed THROUGHOUT the Bible? I.e. that the God of the Bible is revealed by Himself 100%? That the Bible is divine? To that God, life at least before death, obviously matters nought.
[ 07. June 2015, 21:53: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
[/QUOTE]Whatever Joseph's opinions on the institution of chattel slavery, he obviously wasn't big on the idea of freedom. [/QB][/QUOTE]
How could he have been? There was no such concept at that period of time. You might as well demand he have a concept of sepsis.
Brenda
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Martin, you're overstating your case, as you do so often, and what's more, there's no definitions or explanations, just a lot of assertion. I am willing to answer, but if we do it on this thread, there will be a huge huge tangent. Either create a new thread or PM me.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Whatever Joseph's opinions on the institution of chattel slavery, he obviously wasn't big on the idea of freedom.
How could he have been? There was no such concept at that period of time. You might as well demand he have a concept of sepsis.
Brenda
They had the concepts of slavery and bondage, but not of freedom? How did that work, do you suppose?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You started it!
What questions do you have about the conquest of Canaan? Which all feeds back in to the pragmatism of God in the myth of Joseph-Imhotep 500-1000 years before.
Why do we persist in seeing Love through any Bronze Age eye?
Because if we don't we'd have to question Jesus' own Iron one?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I told you I'm not doing that here on this thread. See your alternatives above. I'm not going to derail things further, and won't respond again to it here.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Whatever Joseph's opinions on the institution of chattel slavery, he obviously wasn't big on the idea of freedom.
How could he have been? There was no such concept at that period of time. You might as well demand he have a concept of sepsis.
Brenda
Not at all. What we're presented with in Genesis is quite clearly trying to describe a massive shift in the Egyptian polity. At the beginning of Genesis 47 there are Egyptians with their own lands and flocks. By the end of the chapter there aren't, largely because Pharaoh's henchman Joseph has used a famine he had advance knowledge of to screw them out of everything they had, transitioning from independent farmers/pastoralists to what are essentially sharecroppers. Like much of Genesis this may not be a strictly accurate story in an historical sense, but that's the narrative we're presented with.
And I'm with Dave W on this one. How exactly do you have a concept of slavery without having a concept of freedom?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I didn't say I was good with it. I have a lot of questions about it.
Have a lot of questions about it? - God allegedly orders a massacre, the genocide of a people, the slaying of babes in arms in a systematic murder of an entire people.
And you have a lot of questions about it. I mean, understatement or what? Do you "have a lot of questions" about Stalin's purges or Hitler's policies, but are open to the possibility that they can explain why they were right after all?
This is why, exactly why, I had to leave the concept of the divine authorship of Scripture behind. The God it paints is often an absolute bastard.
[ 08. June 2015, 13:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
fwiw, I'm loathe to jettison the whole idea of the inspiration (and therefore authority) of Scripture for the conquest-- or Joseph's involvement in Egyptian slavery. But I also can't just write off two such horrific incidents all that blithely. At best, I have to put a huge parenthesis around those texts. More likely, as mentioned before, I treat particularly the Pentateuch as a mixture of divine and human-- but so intertwined it's impossible to surgically cut between the two.
I think part of our problem, ironically, lies in our efforts to be more scholarly in our hermeneutics. Which overall is a Very Good Thing. One aspect of that has been efforts to read Scripture contextually-- again, overall Very Good Thing. But in the OT that has meant "letting the text stand on it's own"-- as opposed to "reading the OT thru the NT" which had been standard really since the early church (the NT writers themselves do not follow standard hermeneutics, and in fact play quite fast and loose in their use of the OT). After being once firmly committed to such efforts, including trying to recapture (perhaps futilely) what the text meant to contemporary Jewish audiences, I've come to the conclusion that it simply can't-- or rather, shouldn't-- be done. That the only way for a Christian to read the OT is thru the NT. I've even come to accept a form of the much-maligned "red letter Bible"-- that the closer a text is to Jesus, the more authoritative it may be assumed to be.
I don't know if that makes me more or less of a fundamentalist, but I've found it easier to align my use of Scripture with the God I know and love than when I had to make things like the God of the conquest passages fit with the God of the gospel parables.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
And I'm with Dave W on this one. How exactly do you have a concept of slavery without having a concept of freedom?
Easy. There is no concept of freedom as a separate thing, that is a desirable good for all. Freedom is good for me. And, possibly, for my friends/relatives/tribesmen. It is not good for you. What is good for you is being my slave, so that I get my wood hewn and my water drawn.
You can see this perfectly clearly in the OT. We hated being slaves in Egypt, it was nasty building pyramids. But my slave, here and now? Totally good, fetch me another brewski, hon.
The idea of freedom as something objectively good, that everybody wants, all people everywhere, is relatively modern. You can see them wrestling with it, in the discussions around the US Civil War. There are reams of letters, sermons, speeches, pointing out that the Negro is naturally a slave and happier in that condition.
We are now completely used to the notion, and do not remember that it used to be different. When we read those pro-slavery writings we denounce them as evil. Here is a good modern example: the recent movie, Ex Machina. It is about robots. Why do the robots want to be free? They are created things, created to be workers and slaves. (Does my stapler, my car demand to be free?) But in the movie they do. The moment they achieve self-awareness they demand freedom. We expect it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
And I'm with Dave W on this one. How exactly do you have a concept of slavery without having a concept of freedom?
Easy. There is no concept of freedom as a separate thing, that is a desirable good for all. Freedom is good for me. And, possibly, for my friends/relatives/tribesmen.
While that may not be our idea of freedom, it's still an idea of freedom, something you claim the people portrayed in Genesis lacked. Joseph in particular would have had a very clear idea of the distinction; growing up free, becoming enslaved, and later manumitted. I'm not sure the idea that these changes in his personal situation eluded him or were somehow incomprehensible to him is at all supported by the text.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
Joseph prioritised non-adultery over the potential power he would have as Potifar's head servant. However, he must have prioritised other evils, such as not just slavery but accepting excessively harsh treatment of said slaves, less than the potential good coming from the power of being Pharaoh's second in command. Where does one draw the line for what to prioritise and what to trade off for what else?
All that assumes that Joseph saw slavery as an evil. I'm not seeing anything in the text to support that impression.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
]Easy. There is no concept of freedom as a separate thing, that is a desirable good for all. Freedom is good for me. And, possibly, for my friends/relatives/tribesmen. It is not good for you. What is good for you is being my slave, so that I get my wood hewn and my water drawn.
You can see this perfectly clearly in the OT. We hated being slaves in Egypt, it was nasty building pyramids. But my slave, here and now? Totally good, fetch me another brewski, hon.
In other words, it's not the concept of freedom that was lacking, but the concept of freedom as an inalienable human right.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
One of the most radical thing God says in the OT is (I paraphrase), Be nice to strangers, because you were a stranger. Be kind to your slaves, because you were a slave. Do unto others, dammit.
What God is doing there is telling the Israelites that the Other is Us. Yeah, those people over there, with their funny habits/skin color/political system/gods/food and clothes -- they are human beings too. It took, it is still taking, a long time for this concept to go down. It sticks in everybody's craw. But He said it, and that was a grand beginning. From this has sprung, with infinite slowness, all emancipation movements, all feminism, all the GBLT stuff. If we could actually gag this one down, there may be hope for us yet.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One of the most radical thing God says in the OT is (I paraphrase), Be nice to strangers, because you were a stranger. Be kind to your slaves, because you were a slave. Do unto others, dammit.
What God is doing there is telling the Israelites that the Other is Us. Yeah, those people over there, with their funny habits/skin color/political system/gods/food and clothes -- they are human too.
Yes, it's a way of stating the truth of Genesis 1 that all humans are made in the image of God, and that we should "Do unto others..."
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Joseph in particular would have had a very clear idea of the distinction; growing up free, becoming enslaved, and later manumitted. I'm not sure the idea that these changes in his personal situation eluded him or were somehow incomprehensible to him is at all supported by the text.
If Joseph existed and lived in Ancient Egypt, he was not manumitted. That is a concept from the very specific context of Roman slavery, as described by Brenda above, which had no equivalent in Ancient Near Eastern societies. Heck, in a cashless economy, where everybody is paid in food and clothing etc., how does one differentiate clearly between a 'slave' and a 'free servant' anyway?
Also, whoever wrote the myth had no idea how the Ancient Egyptian economy worked. Pharaoh owned all the land. His scribes calculated the amount of grain each plot was expected to yield each year, based on how good a flood it was, food for the farmer's family and seed for next year's crop was deducted and then that was the amount the farmer had to pay in tax/rent/whatever you want to call it that year.
'Egyptians with their own lands and flocks' makes as much sense in an Egyptological context as manumission.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Also, whoever wrote the myth had no idea how the Ancient Egyptian economy worked. Pharaoh owned all the land. His scribes calculated the amount of grain each plot was expected to yield each year, based on how good a flood it was, food for the farmer's family and seed for next year's crop was deducted and then that was the amount the farmer had to pay in tax/rent/whatever you want to call it that year.
'Egyptians with their own lands and flocks' makes as much sense in an Egyptological context as manumission.
The account is an early "Just So" story. The state described at the end of Genesis 47 is the Egypt you describe and which would have been familiar to the author(s) of that bit of the Torah. As I previously noted the account is almost certainly not historically accurate, but it's a tale the Hebrews told each other about how Pharaoh came to own all the land in Egypt. It's not history, but it's the narrative we have about Joseph's tenure as Pharaoh's henchman.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Brenda.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
I couldn't help but think of Joseph's own words while reading this thread: Genesis 50:20 FWIW
--Tom Clune
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One of the most radical thing God says in the OT is (I paraphrase), Be nice to strangers, because you were a stranger. Be kind to your slaves, because you were a slave. Do unto others, dammit.
What God is doing there is telling the Israelites that the Other is Us.
Not really one of the major themes, I'd say - easy to miss amongst all the stuff about the "chosen people" with their special relationship to God, slaughtering the neighboring Canaanite tribes, etc.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One of the most radical thing God says in the OT is (I paraphrase), Be nice to strangers, because you were a stranger. Be kind to your slaves, because you were a slave. Do unto others, dammit.
What God is doing there is telling the Israelites that the Other is Us.
Not really one of the major themes, I'd say - easy to miss amongst all the stuff about the "chosen people" with their special relationship to God, slaughtering the neighboring Canaanite tribes, etc.
Curiously it really IS a major theme. It comes up a lot, and underlies much of the detailed laws and regulations. Which makes the equally true themes that you mention all the more perplexing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's the 0.1% up against the 110%
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Curiously it really IS a major theme. It comes up a lot, and underlies much of the detailed laws and regulations.
What would you say are the best examples of this?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Curiously it really IS a major theme. It comes up a lot, and underlies much of the detailed laws and regulations.
What would you say are the best examples of this?
hmmmm... off the top of my head, I'd say probably Jonah ("should I not care?..."). But you see it popping up in several places. Which is not at all to deny the steady drumbeat of tribalism and exclusivity that comes out again and again as well. Trying to unify these discordant elements is... troubling, to say the least.
[ 09. June 2015, 12:15: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
You can also view it in all the lectionary readings for Epiphany, Christ the King Sunday, and so on.
There are indeed two strains, pulling opposite ways. Should we slay our neighbors and rape their women, or should we treat them like brothers (and their women like sisters)?
Which is why micro Bible reference, pulling one verse out and waving it, is unhelpful. You can find a verse in the Bible to support just about any atrocity you can name. You have to step back and look at the big picture.
And following Jesus is also helpful. And He was not long on those verses that advocated smashing children onto rocks.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And following Jesus is also helpful. And He was not long on those verses that advocated smashing children onto rocks.
Right, and he did say that the Law boiled down to love God and love neighbor—which, of course, prompted the question "Who is my neighbor?," and Jesus's answer to that question.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You can also view it in all the lectionary readings for Epiphany, Christ the King Sunday, and so on.
Given their purpose, I don't think I'd agree that these kinds of collections are really suitable for providing a "big picture" view of the OT. In any case, I looked at the OT readings from the first 7 entries of this Epiphany lectionary and didn't notice much in the way of exhortations to be kind to the Other. I'd be curious to know where you see them.
cliffdweller: The example of Jonah is pretty interesting, since he's being sent out to "cry against" the heathen Ninevites - not the most agreeable of charitable interventions, perhaps, but at least he wasn't sent out to kill them. My recollection was that the prophets typically specialized in haranguing the Israelites, not their neighbors. I think the whole flashy bit about the belly of the fish really kind of buries the lede.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
cliffdweller: The example of Jonah is pretty interesting, since he's being sent out to "cry against" the heathen Ninevites - not the most agreeable of charitable interventions, perhaps, but at least he wasn't sent out to kill them. My recollection was that the prophets typically specialized in haranguing the Israelites, not their neighbors. I think the whole flashy bit about the belly of the fish really kind of buries the lede.
But the ending is significant-- and seems to be a pretty powerful rebuke of the troubling tribalism that is, as you note, a consistent theme up until then. The final verse, as Jonah sits petulantly under the withered plant, seems particularly poignant:
quote:
Jonah 4:11 But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?”
[ 10. June 2015, 06:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
cliffdweller: The example of Jonah is pretty interesting, since he's being sent out to "cry against" the heathen Ninevites - not the most agreeable of charitable interventions, perhaps, but at least he wasn't sent out to kill them. My recollection was that the prophets typically specialized in haranguing the Israelites, not their neighbors. I think the whole flashy bit about the belly of the fish really kind of buries the lede.
But the ending is significant-- and seems to be a pretty powerful rebuke of the troubling tribalism that is, as you note, a consistent theme up until then.
"But"? I thought I was agreeing with you, at least as far as treating Jonah as evidence of God caring for someone other than the Hebrews.
I think this is an interesting exception, though, not an instance of a major theme in the OT. And if it's a rebuke to tribalism, then God must be rebuking himself, as he himself is the author of the exceptionalism.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Rather than just Joseph, you can ask the same kinds of questions about nearly everyone in the Old Testament (and many in the New). It appears that every culture in the Bible has slavery. Did Jacob, Saul, David or Solomon have slaves? In the New Testament, did rich men such as Joseph of Arimathea have slaves?
The rejection of slavery in the last few centuries is something of a historical aberration, and, of course, there is plenty of slavery left in the world today. It is always easy to reinvent it.
Similarly, the idea of democracy is a non-Biblical concept. Every culture in the Bible is top-down authoritative, with the possible exception of anarchy in the book of Judges.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think this is an interesting exception, though, not an instance of a major theme in the OT. And if it's a rebuke to tribalism, then God must be rebuking himself, as he himself is the author of the exceptionalism.
I was asked what I thought was the most important counter-tribalism example, other shippies have provided other examples as well. While Jonah is the clearest and most direct rebuke to tribalism, as others have noted, it is a consistent theme that is found elsewhere in the OT-- often existing side-by-side with the blatant and troubling tribalism. I agree that's troubling and makes for some tortured hermeneutics if we are to treat every OT text the same. Which is why most of us, regardless of what our stated beliefs about inspiration might be, inevitably end up being somewhat selective, especially re OT texts. In an earlier text I proffered my own rubric-- not that I'm all that comfortable with it, simply that it's the best I can see at this point. It is interesting, though, that if Jonah can be dated as much later than Joshua, it would fit my paradigm.
[ 10. June 2015, 14:59: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I'd agree that be kind to strangers qualifies pretty well as a theme. For one thing, look how many books of the OT say almost word for word "Be kind to strangers for you were a stranger in Egypt." I'm seeing it in Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Leviticus. Also just look at how many passages tell the Israelites to care for widows (who are excluded from society by the loss of their man) or not to oppress orphans, travellers, or the poor.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd agree that be kind to strangers qualifies pretty well as a theme. For one thing, look how many books of the OT say almost word for word "Be kind to strangers for you were a stranger in Egypt." I'm seeing it in Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Leviticus. Also just look at how many passages tell the Israelites to care for widows (who are excluded from society by the loss of their man) or not to oppress orphans, travellers, or the poor.
Exactly. The fact that those same books include these very tribalistic decrees is troubling, absolutely-- and a challenge to our hermeneutics/ assumptions about inspiration. But shouldn't be allowed to drown out this other dominant theme-- one that becomes the primary theme when you get to the NT.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Similarly, the idea of democracy is a non-Biblical concept. Every culture in the Bible is top-down authoritative, with the possible exception of anarchy in the book of Judges.
During the era of the Biblical judges, Israel was not really an anarchy. There are a number of conceptions of anarchy, but generally it would be the absence of recognized leaders/government. In ancient Israel, there was no complete absence of government. Rather, it can be described as a confederation of the twelve tribes, wherein each tribe governed its own affairs. If we want to discuss Israel as a single entity, there is actually a specific term to describe the governmental structure during this period - "kritarchy," which literally means "rule of judges."
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Similarly, the idea of democracy is a non-Biblical concept. Every culture in the Bible is top-down authoritative, with the possible exception of anarchy in the book of Judges.
During the era of the Biblical judges, Israel was not really an anarchy. There are a number of conceptions of anarchy, but generally it would be the absence of recognized leaders/government. In ancient Israel, there was no complete absence of government. Rather, it can be described as a confederation of the twelve tribes, wherein each tribe governed its own affairs. If we want to discuss Israel as a single entity, there is actually a specific term to describe the governmental structure during this period - "kritarchy," which literally means "rule of judges."
You may want to describe it that way, but HCH is quite correct that Judges very much describes it as anarchy, as seen in multiple verses in almost every chapter of the book saying:
quote:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. (Judges 17:6, 21:25, etc etc)
That sounds very much to me like the author is trying to say "anarchy".
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think this is an interesting exception, though, not an instance of a major theme in the OT. And if it's a rebuke to tribalism, then God must be rebuking himself, as he himself is the author of the exceptionalism.
I was asked what I thought was the most important counter-tribalism example, other shippies have provided other examples as well.
So far we've got Jonah and (as Brenda and Gwai note) some special consideration for "strangers". The latter references are often specifically "who live among you" and typically grouped with widows and orphans. This makes me wonder if "strangers" may often some kind of class of hard luck cases - exiles from neighboring tribes, perhaps. There seems to be an air of charity for the impoverished, which is commendable as far as it goes, but I don't see any signs that this extends to general feelings of brotherly love for foreigners per se.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. (Judges 17:6, 21:25, etc etc)
That sounds very much to me like the author is trying to say "anarchy".
You have to read the entire verse in context. The statement "everyone did as he saw fit" is stated in the framework of "Israel had no king." Therefore the best way to interpret "everyone did as he saw fit" is as merely another way of stating that there was no overarching regular authority for all of Israel. This should not be extended to implicate that Israel was in a state of anarchy.
We know that each of the tribes had some sort of internal governance - the chiefs of each tribe are explicitly named in Numbers 34:16-29 for example. Furthermore, the judges themselves contradict the idea that there was anarchy, as all of the tribes submitted to the authority of a single individual in times of necessity. There is ample evidence to show that there was common acceptance of certain forms of authority, albeit very devolved, rather than radical individualism or complete chaos.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think this is an interesting exception, though, not an instance of a major theme in the OT. And if it's a rebuke to tribalism, then God must be rebuking himself, as he himself is the author of the exceptionalism.
I was asked what I thought was the most important counter-tribalism example, other shippies have provided other examples as well.
So far we've got Jonah and (as Brenda and Gwai note) some special consideration for "strangers". The latter references are often specifically "who live among you" and typically grouped with widows and orphans. This makes me wonder if "strangers" may often some kind of class of hard luck cases - exiles from neighboring tribes, perhaps. There seems to be an air of charity for the impoverished, which is commendable as far as it goes, but I don't see any signs that this extends to general feelings of brotherly love for foreigners per se.
Let's start with the very essence of the exclusivity/ tribalism-- the Abrahamic covenant which first sets up Israel as the chosen people. Even there the text indicates that the purpose of Israel's special status is to bless all the nations of the world:
quote:
Gen. 12:2 “I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you; I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
Gen. 12:3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I will concede that "anarchy" may be too strong a term. I have known people who asserted that in the time of Judges, the actual government was theocracy, rule by religious leaders.
As I understand it, the individual judges themselves were leaders in times of emergency (e.g., Gideon) and did not exert civil authority after the end of the emergency. Some of them do seem to fit the term "anarchy"; I am thinking of Samson. In any case, they were not democratically chosen leaders, which was my point.
I apologize for raising a side issue.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
And I'm with Dave W on this one. How exactly do you have a concept of slavery without having a concept of freedom?
Easy. There is no concept of freedom as a separate thing, that is a desirable good for all. Freedom is good for me. And, possibly, for my friends/relatives/tribesmen. It is not good for you. What is good for you is being my slave, so that I get my wood hewn and my water drawn.
You can see this perfectly clearly in the OT. We hated being slaves in Egypt, it was nasty building pyramids. But my slave, here and now? Totally good, fetch me another brewski, hon.
How free is our own 'free' society? Chattel slavery has thankfully now been banned but let us not forget why it was banned. It was banned because it was a form of involuntary servitude unsuited to a modern economy. The reality of involuntary servitude for huge number of 'free' people in one form or another remains.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Let's start with the very essence of the exclusivity/ tribalism-- the Abrahamic covenant which first sets up Israel as the chosen people. Even there the text indicates that the purpose of Israel's special status is to bless all the nations of the world:
quote:
Gen. 12:2 “I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you; I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
Gen. 12:3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”
Well, not quite front and center, I'd say. Israel will be great, Israel will be blessed, Israel's name will be great, Israel's friends will be blessed, Israel's enemies will be cursed. And everyone else will be blessed - through Israel.
You know, I don't think I ever quite understood just how they were supposed to be a blessing to everyone else. In OT terms alone, I mean - I realize that Christians see Christ as the fulfillment of many OT claims and predictions. In the interim, though, was there some way this transitive blessing of all peoples on earth manifested itself, would you say?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I wouldn't presume to speak for the Lord on the matter. My point was that, from the very beginning, the language of exclusivity was couched in an inclusive purpose-- that "love your neighbor" is there in the most central, founding element of the OT. The fact that the inclusive aspect was rarely if ever practiced in an inclusive way probably has to do with the innate tribalism of humans in general.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I wouldn't presume to speak for the Lord on the matter.
That's probably wise (though it does close off some interesting career opportunities.) But actually I was wondering if you happened to know of any standard or traditional interpretations of what this was believed to be a reference to (other than eventual salvation through Christ.) quote:
My point was that, from the very beginning, the language of exclusivity was couched in an inclusive purpose-- that "love your neighbor" is there in the most central, founding element of the OT. The fact that the inclusive aspect was rarely if ever practiced in an inclusive way probably has to do with the innate tribalism of humans in general.
I guess that's the sticking point - to my eye the elevation of Israel over everyone else in the world (including in the passage you quote) combined with their frequent and God-sanctioned belligerence towards their neighbors, far and away dominates any consideration for the other. I understand the view that the lack of inclusivity (and other virtues) can be ascribed to human fallibility, but I think efforts to separate God from some of the things he seems to be saying or doing in the OT can result in some pretty strained readings of the text. (Presumably one's willingness to accept interpretations more or less charitable towards God depends a lot on what other independent reasons one has to believe in him, or not.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I guess that's the sticking point - to my eye the elevation of Israel over everyone else in the world (including in the passage you quote) combined with their frequent and God-sanctioned belligerence towards their neighbors, far and away dominates any consideration for the other. I understand the view that the lack of inclusivity (and other virtues) can be ascribed to human fallibility, but I think efforts to separate God from some of the things he seems to be saying or doing in the OT can result in some pretty strained readings of the text. (Presumably one's willingness to accept interpretations more or less charitable towards God depends a lot on what other independent reasons one has to believe in him, or not.)
Totally agree-- as I said upthread. I'm just making the point that there IS this dominant theme of inclusivity/ love for "others"-- existing often side-by-side (as here) with the egregious and sometimes deadly exclusivity/tribalism. I'm not trying to excuse it, including God's hand in it. Just putting both sides on the table.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The 0.1%, absent in ALL other contemporary cultures, dominates the 110% by transcending it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
How free is our own 'free' society? Chattel slavery has thankfully now been banned but let us not forget why it was banned. It was banned because it was a form of involuntary servitude unsuited to a modern economy. The reality of involuntary servitude for huge number of 'free' people in one form or another remains.
I don't think that's quite correct. It was abolished because some people were eventually convinced it was wrong for one person to claim to own another. There were plenty of people who went to war to retain it. A key reason for their resistance to something which to us now looks ethically self-evident, because there was a lot of money at stake. It made sense to own slaves rather than employ workers.
If one takes the ethical imperative away, slavery is quite capable of reappearing, as with the millions of state slaves in Russia during the 1930s and 40s.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I think we have to distinguish between slavery, and work.
We all have to work, because Fall of Adam, by the sweat of your brow shall you earn your bread, Paul making tents, etc. We contemplate, say, a layabout son in front of the TV 20 hours a day, clutching the remote, playing video games and eating pizza, and we know this is not right. Get out there, you lazy bum, and get a job!
OTOH we can also easily perceive the evil of slavery. The Roman who can rape his slave, sell her babies into slavery, cut her hair once a year for sale to the wigmakers, and dump her in the gutter when she's no longer fertile, this is inarguably wrong.
But if you peel out all the bad stuff about the Roman slave -- if you draw a border between work and slavery -- then work must be OK. (It has to be, otherwise per St. Paul we starve.) The nature and permeability of this border is under constant negotiation and debate, of course. (Everything from unduly sexy women scientists to minimum wage law here.)
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Since it's been brought up, and people are running with it, I'll say what I've said elsewhere. The OT law never claims to be a statement of God's perfect will for human beings.
Someone else seems to think differently:Matthew 5:18
[code]
[ 12. June 2015, 15:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
First: (and cheapest): He isn't calling it perfect there, just permanent. Second, and more to the point--when we say "Law," we may mean the moral Law, which is what I believe he's referring to here; or we may mean the whole kit-and-caboodle, including the bit about how to properly take a dump (hint: involves a shovel) as well as cooking rules and things not to do to your beard. Are you really suggesting that that part was intended to be eternal?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0