Tuesday, November 27, 2018

When Ra Created the World

Illuminating the Old Testament

The Genesis 1 creation account bears a striking resemblance to other ancient creation myths, demonstrating that the author(s) simply copied from existing materials and chopped out the other gods.

At least, that's what we've been told.

Archaeology has discovered a number of ancient creation myths from the part of the world that produced the Bible. And there are some similarities between the stories. What does that mean for us?

I don't think it means anything until the similarities are examined with the differences.

When you want to compare the Bible to the Egyptian creation myth, you have to ask which one. There were several, and they were all different, though there were some similarities. One, though, is particularly telling. There are so many versions online, each a little different, and many omitting the most ... interesting part. Here is one that keeps it. And I'm sorry.

[These are] the words which the god Neb-er-tcher spoke after he had come into being: "I am he who came into being in the form of the god Khepera, and I am the creator of that which came into being, that is to say, I am the creator of everything which came into being. Now the things which I created, and which came forth out of my mouth after that I had come into being myself were exceedingly many. The sky (or heaven) had not come into being, the earth did not (exist, and the children of the earth, and the creeping things had not been made at that time. I myself raised them up from out of Nu, from a state of helpless inertness.

I found no place whereon I could stand. I worked a charm upon my own heart (or, will). I laid the foundation [of things] by Maat, and I made everything which had form. I was [then] one by myself, for I had not emitted from myself the god Shu, and I had not spit out from myself the goddess Tefnut; and there existed no other who could work with me. I laid the foundations [of things] in my own heart, and there came into being multitudes of created things, which came into being from the created things which were born from the created things which arose from what they brought forth.

I had union with my closed hand, and I embraced my shadow as a wife, and I poured seed into my own mouth, and I sent forth from myself issue in the form of the gods Shu and Tefnut.

Said my father Nu: 'My Eye was covered up behind them (i.e., Shu. and Tefnut), but after two hen periods had passed from the time when they departed from me, from being one god I became three gods, and I came into being in the earth.'
Yes you read that right. The god in question copulates with himself. After that, the new gods, Shu and Tefnut, mate and produce more gods who produce more gods, etc, etc.

Now, not all of the Egyptian creation myths include the self love mentioned above, but they all share the same general pattern: The first god or gods are created/create themselves. Then they create other gods. These gods are the personification of various aspects of the natural world — eg, the sun, the wind. So the creator god immediately makes more gods to help him create and run the world.

Read against this background, I think the differences between the Egyptian accounts and the Genesis 1 account are quite telling. The story of Genesis does not begin with the creation of YHWH. He is already there. He does not need help creating and running the world; he speaks and it simply happens. Unlike many ancient creation accounts (the Sumerian version is another popular "source" the Bible is alleged to have copied from), there is no epic battle wherein the victor uses the loser's body to create the world.

In the Egyptian accounts, humans just kind of happen. In the Sumerian account, they are created as slaves. In the Genesis account, they are created as stewards and friends.

It's been suggested that there is a polemic element to much of the Old Testament. If so, the similarities are supposed to highlight the differences. I think comparing the Bible's creation story to those of the Hebrews' neighbors makes it clear what the author was trying to say:

God did not begin; he is. God is eternal.

God created the world alone; the sun, moon, wind, and ocean are not gods. There are not multiple gods struggling against each other. There is one god, and he is sovereign.

God did not struggle to create the world; he spoke, and it was. God is almighty.

If the creation account is a polemic, the message to the hearers — the early Israelites — was that YHWH, the God who brought them out of Egypt, was far more powerful than either the Egyptians or anyone else had even dared to dream and that he had a plan, a purpose for humanity. This is the truth that they, and we, are given to give us strength as we face a world that desires to defeat us.

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Remembering the Great Cloud of Witnesses

November 1st is All Saints' Day, the day set aside to honor "all the saints, known and unknown." We don't have to hold to the Roman Catholic idea of saints as special Christians to remember and respect those who have paved the way for us.

We should remember Abraham, the man of faith, the progenitor of the line of Christ. 

We should honor Moses who followed God into facing down the most powerful king of his day.

We should give thanks for the example of David who showed us that a man after God's own heart can still sin — and be forgiven.

We should honor 
Peter, the leader of the church who was still so very fallible, and Paul, the persecutor of the church who became its greatest apostle, and Stephen, who showed us that we can face death with the same attitude as Christ.

Let us learn from the example of Polycarp who preferred the arena or the flames to blasphemy saying, “86 years have I have served him, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?”

And Justin, the apologist who chose to lose his head rather than his soul, saying, "No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety."

And Jim Elliot who went into the jungle saying, "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose," and never returned.

Let us remember Athanasius standing contra mundum, Luther at Worms, Latimer at the stake who taught us the truth was worth everything.

As we hold our Bibles, let us give thanks for Tyndale and Rogers who gave their lives so we could have it in English.

And for Brother Andrew and all those who have risked and even given their lives to take the scriptures to the world.

Honor Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm as well as Edwards, Lewis, and Schaeffer who taught us to think about the faith, and Spurgeon, Wesley, and Graham who taught us to share it.

Thank God for the legions of pastors and teachers who never made it into history books but devoted themselves to teaching the next generation about Jesus. 

Thank God for the white haired saints that have gone on to their reward who told you about Jesus, who showed you want it meant to live for him.

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith."

Friday, October 19, 2018

Religion in Political Discourse

Does religion have any place in political discourse?

Tim Keller recently wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times: How Do Christians Fit Into the Two-Party System? They Don’t. It's a great piece, and I recommend you read it. That's not what I want to talk about though.

In the comment section of the article, one of the "NYT picks" comments caught my attention. It's a reasonably well-written example of an attitude I've been seeing more and more in recent years, so I will paste it here:

“As a strong believer in the separation of Church and State, I believe that religion has no place in political discourse. I am sick and tired of so-called Christians and other faith-based groups, using their religious beliefs to influence public policy. You want to pray. Fine. Go to church. You want to live your life in accordance with some religious belief. Fine. Do it in the privacy of your home. But, do not use your religious belief to argue that your right to free speech is infringed upon when you are asked to bake a cake for a same sex couple, provide birth control under your company’s health insurance plan, deny science, etc. In short, do not use your religious beliefs to deny my right to live as I see fit. To influence public policy which denies millions of women, minorities, and children, access to health care, abortion, voting rights, civil rights. I am simply fed up with the hypocrisy to the so-called religious people in this country preaching to the rest of us who simply want to live our lives freely and openly without the burden of dealing with someone’s else’s gods foisted upon us.”
To an apparently growing segment of the population, the mere fact that your point of view is based in your religious beliefs makes renders it out of bounds.

Aside from the fact that "the separation of Church and State" isn't in the US Constitution, aside from the fact that this view is at odds with the actual text of the 1st Amendment and Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution, it's simply illogical.

The commentor's basic point is that my religious beliefs shouldn't have any affect on what I do outside my church or home. Do whatever you want in private, but don't let it affect how you live your life. Especially don't let it affect how she lives her life.

But she wants her ideas to affect how I live my life. She believes same-sex marriage is good and right, so I must act like it is too. She believes abortion is good and right, so I must act like it is.

Why? Because her ideas aren't based on a religion and mine are. That doesn't matter. But is that really even the case? There are millions who say they are "spiritual but not religious." You don't have to belong to an established religious organization to have "spiritual" beliefs. And in the same way, she has spiritual beliefs — whether her beliefs are that there is no god or that whatever god exists doesn't matter. Her religious beliefs may be different from mine, but they are really just as religious. And she not only wants to live her life based on them, she wants me to do so too.

She doesn't really want people to keep their religious beliefs in private. People acting on their religious beliefs open hospitals, run orphanages, and feed the hungry. They've opposed slavery, wars, and the abuse of women because of their religious beliefs.

And that's the way it's supposed to be. Jesus says if your beliefs don't affect the way you live your life, you don't really believe them.

Monday, October 8, 2018

Review: Scientism and Secularism

I don't want to become all book reviews all the time, but I think this book is important, so I decided to run another review already.

When I saw that JP Moreland's Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology was available for free review copies, my first reaction was that it sounded kind of heavy and I didn't want to read that right now. Then I thought about my teenage daughter and the questions she's been asking, the things she tells me about her classmates and teachers. Yeah, let's go ahead and read it now.

Scientism is variously defined, but it's safe to call it "the view that the hard sciences alone have the intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality" (26). Anything else — such as moral or spiritual claims — is not true knowledge and is therefore subjective. In other words, if it's not "science" it's just opinion.

In this new paradigm, faith has been redefined. Instead of being trust based on what you know, it's belief without or even in spite of evidence.

Maybe that would be appropriate if scientism were true, but Moreland shows that the philosophy (for that is what it is) is self-refuting both on its face and because science rests on a foundation of unprovable but necessary building blocks (e.g., logic, mathematics). He goes into detail about some things that science cannot explain but theism can, and he explores ways to integrate Christianity and scientific exploration.

It sounds heavy, right?

It's really not that heavy. Chalk it up to Professor Moreland's excellent communication skills. Even when it gets deeper into the philosophy, it's pretty easy to read and follow his argument.

Is it a perfect book? Of course not. In particular, some of his examples are a little iffy. His background is in chemistry, but he draws them from physics, and sometimes they fall a bit flat. Also, I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of doing science without methodological (as opposed to philosophical) naturalism.

But his arguments are sound and his warning is necessary. In just a few decades we've gotten to a place where anything that isn't measurable is treated as opinion. It will only get worse unless people push back.

Which is why I give this my rare five-star rating. I dearly wish everyone would read this book. This is another free ebook that I'll be picking up in hard copy.

Friday, September 14, 2018

Review: Christian Ethics

Mortimer Adler says, when you critique a book, you're supposed to critique the book the author intended to write not the book you wish he'd written. It's in that spirit I set out to review Wayne Grudem's Christian Ethics.

I was excited when I saw it was available for free review copies. This is an area in which I haven't read much, and there are so many moral issues either giving us trouble now or looming on the horizon, so I was eager to dive in.

Grudem says, "I have written this book for Christians who want to understand what the Bible teaches about how to obey God faithfully in their daily lives." It was written to serve as a textbook or a guide for the lay believer, and it can be read straight through or readers can dip into whichever chapters address their particular concerns. The format is very similar to his Systematic Theology. He gives his arguments in a cleanly laid out format, then he provides "questions for personal application," a list of special terms from the chapter that appear in the glossary, and a bibliography of other works that weigh in on the same topics, followed by a scripture memory passage and a hymn.

He lists six "distinctive features" of his book: a clear biblical basis for ethics, clarity in the explanation of ethical teachings, application to life, focus on the evangelical world, hope for progress int he unity of the church on ethical issues, and a sense of the urgent need for greater ethical understanding in the whole church. I totally agree that those features characterize the book, most especially the first.

The first part of the book lays down a foundation for the discussion of ethics: where do they come from, why do we care, how do we know God's will? Then he discusses the possibility of the impossible moral conundrum (ie, where the believer must choose between sinful options) and how to use the Old Testament for ethical guidance. After that he launches into the various ethical topics using the Ten Commandments as organizational headings. (For example, under "You shall not steal", he handles property rights, "work, rest, vacations, and retirement," increasing prosperity, poverty, business ethics, and more.)

Now it's time to "critique the book the author intended to write." So how'd he do? If you're familiar with his other work, it'll come as no surprise that he's thorough, thoughtful, and clear. You may not always agree with what he says, but he says it well. I think he let himself off a little too easy on the topic of impossible moral situations, but this is a very, very difficult area that most of us — thankfully — will never really experience.

On the individual issues he was, again, very thorough and, in my humble opinion, completely biblical — and honest when he's going beyond what the biblical text actually says. I do wish he gone into more detail on medical and/or genetic "improvements" on humans (one of the issues looming on the horizon), but it's hardly a classical problem at this point.

My only real complaint comes from the book I wish he'd written. I was hoping to get a more generalized methodology for approaching new issues. I expected something like that in his chapters on "factors to consider in making ethical decisions" and using the OT for guidance. I didn't really get what I was looking for. I don't know if such a thing doesn't exist or if I was just expecting too much. Or perhaps that's simply not the book he set out to write.

Judging the book he wrote on the grounds of what he says he intended to do, it's a good book. It's not the only such book (he lists many, many others), but it's well written, comprehensive, and thoroughly biblical. I got the electronic version for free, but some day I'll probably pick up a hard copy for the shelf.

I reserve that fifth star for only the most important books, but this one would easily be four stars. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the topic of biblical ethics and to everyone who's not.

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Why Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality

Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality. To religious liberals, this means he had no problems with it.

Of course, he never condemned rape, and no one thinks he's OK with that. He never talked about health care reform or immigration, but people are sure his teachings should inform our views on that. But the fact that he never mentioned homosexuality is supposed to be a license to support it, legalize it, and bless it.

I recently came across an STR podcast that talks about this issue, claiming that Jesus' silence on the issue proves the conservative view. The argument is that Jesus modified Old Testament teachings (eg, Mark 7:14-19, Matt 5:31-32) and/or the contemporary understanding of OT teachings (eg, Matt 5:38-48) whenever he disagreed with them.

The fact that he said nothing about homosexuality means he agreed with their understanding of the OT rules on the subject.

I recommend checking out this podcast for Greg's discussion of the issue and their other podcasts — they've got a lot of great stuff on their website.

Did Jesus Say Nothing About Homosexuality?
One Among Many

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

The Legacy of Omri

Illuminating the Old Testament

My recent review of the ESV Archaeology Study Bible reminded me that I never came back to this idea. It's time to rectify that.

1 Kings 16:21-28 recounts Omri's reign over the northern kingdom of Israel. The text briefly mentions that he had to quash a competitor and that he moved the capital of Israel to Samaria. And that's all we would know about Omri's reign if we only had the biblical record.

Archaeology provides more detail. Omri didn't just pitch a tent and call it Samaria. He built a palace that has been compared to Solomon's work in Jerusalem. And he made Samaria a commercial power. Under his leadership, Israel prospered.

Part of that prosperity was due to the fact that he conquered Moab and forced them to pay tribute, a fact that the Bible only obliquely references later when the Moabites rebel against that tribute.

Omnri's wealth and military prowess so impressed outsiders that the Assyrians called future kings "son of Omri." He should, by all rights, have quite the legacy. He may not have been David or Solomon, but he was an impressive king.

God was not impressed. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, this is the legacy of Omri of Israel:

"Omri did evil in the eyes of the LORD and sinned more than all those before him. He followed completely the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat, committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols."

We must never forget that the Lord is not impressed by money, power, or success in the things of the world. The only question is "Did you follow God?"

A Covenant of One
The Bible and Archeology

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Review: ESV Archaeology Study Bible

I received a (disclosure: free) review copy of the new ESV Archaeology Study Bible from Crossway, and then had to ask myself how I'm going to evaluate this thing. Ultimately I decided the only question I really wanted to ask is whether the notes actually illuminate the text in question. Trivia can be fun, apologetics are useful, but a study Bible should make a meaningful contribution to your understanding of the text. I didn't want "Oh, that's cool" but "Oh, that's what that means." While I was at it, I also compared the notes to the ESV Study Bible (Crossway) and NIV Archaeological Study Bible (Zondervan) because it'd be good know if this thing didn't contain anything new. (Yes, I am in possession of far too many study Bibles.)

First, the details as listed by the publisher:

The ESV Archaeology Study Bible roots the biblical text in its historical and cultural context .... The Archaeology Study Bible assembles a range of modern scholarship—pairing the biblical text with over 2,000 study notes, 400 full-color photographs, 200 maps and diagrams, 200 sidebars, 15 articles, and 4 timelines.
It also contains the usual kind of cross-references and textual footnotes. It's stuffed pretty full, and frankly it's a back-breaking monster that you aren't going to wag to church. But that's not what it's for. It's for study — whether you're just doing it for your own edification, or you're preparing a lesson or sermon.

So is it any good at that?

To answer that question I looked at sections of Genesis, Exodus, Nehemiah, 2 Kings, Malachi, and Matthew. One thing I appreciated is the editors largely resisted the urge to add non-archaeology comments (something that Zondervan failed to do). If archaeology didn't add much to a passage, there wasn't much in the way of notes. Now the notes themselves are not always golden. Malachi in particular had largely trivial notes — things that really didn't affect your understanding of the message of the text. I should add that each book has a brief introduction that includes a general summary of how archaeology has contributed to the understanding of that book. It says for Song of Songs, "Given the subject matter and poetic style ..., there is little archaeology can do to illumine the central message of the text." (Yet it still has some interesting bits about fruits and perfumes and locations mentioned in the text.) So I feel like they're trying to be honest and not waste your time.

In most of the sections I looked at, however, the notes really did add to the passage. I expected Genesis and Exodus to be full of useful information, and they were. Matthew as well. 2 Kings I didn't quite know what to expect. Every passage didn't have great notes, but many did. The simple truth is archaeology just doesn't have something to offer about every passage. The editors obviously had to flesh out the notes, but they were cautious about doing so with non-archaeology material.

So how does this study Bible compare to the ESV Study Bible? I saw very little of the note material from one in the other. Diagrams, pictures, and charts, though, were frequently re-used. Both have a number of articles and essays, and there wasn't a lot of overlap there, either. So already having the ESV Study Bible shouldn't make you rule this one out.

So how does this study Bible compare to the NIV Archaeological Study Bible? It shouldn't be surprising that there's more overlap here, but I found the notes to be more applicable and the essays to be (a little) more useful. Also, the ESV notes are theologically more conservative than the NIV notes (which frankly surprised me). If you have the NIV, I'm not sure you need a new one, but I do like Crossway's version better.

A quick note about the essays: They give you a thumbnail sketch in a few pages on topics about which whole books have been written. You can't take them as the end-all on the topic, but you can use them to make you aware of issues in archaeology that you may want to investigate further — perhaps in something like Hoerth's Archaeology and the Old Testament.

Now, study Bibles are not devotionals. They don't do the heavy lifting for you. They tell you about the text and leave it up to you to see how that should affect your life. So simply reading the notes in the ESV Archaeology Study Bible is not going to make you love Jesus more or live more like him. But it can help you see the text more clearly, and that can.

Rating: 4/5 — Recommended

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

The God Who Wants Peculiar People

Deuteronomy 22-26 (and much of the rest of the Pentateuch) contains rules for Israel that are odd to modern eyes and ears. There rules about what you can eat, what you can wear, and how to style your beard. God tells them what they can plant and what animals they can yoke together. Why are these rules so weird, and why does God care about such minor things?

God desired his people to be a peculiar people. He wanted them to stick out. He wanted them to be separate from their neighbors. Many of these peculiarities seem pointless, but the "pointless" peculiarities call attention to (and protect) important peculiarities.

The word in and around Canaan would have been that these guys are weird. "They dress funny, they don't eat perfectly good food, and they take a whole year off from work every seven years." But once people started watching them, they should have seen even weirder things:

They treat the poor, women, and foreigners with kindness and respect. There are no murderers, thieves, or adulterers among them. They don't sacrifice their children to their gods. They don't even have shrine prostitutes or idols. In fact, they seem to only have one god. And their god seems to bless everything they do.
Of course, things didn't really shake out that way because they weren't very good at following rules.

So God made himself a new peculiar people. He took people from every tribe and made them his own, this time putting his law in their minds and hearts (cf Jer 31:33) so that they can be the holy people he desires (1 Pet 1:15-16).

We don't always follow the rules so well either, but when we do it can be glorious:

"Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign.

And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.

They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life. They are attacked by the Jews as aliens, they are persecuted by the Greeks, yet no one can explain the reason for this hatred." — from the Epistle to Diognetus

Or another picture:

"Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are . . . not spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines or banished to the islands or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another ..." — from the Apology of Tertullian

We are not perfect. We will not be perfect until Christ comes and makes us, finally, like him. But we can strive to imitate him. When we love like he loved us, that kind of peculiarity will stick out. The world cannot miss it. And then they will ask us the reason for the hope that is in us. And the lost will be saved. And Christ will be glorified.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

The God Who Hates Slavery

God hates slavery.

I know, that's a hard statement to defend. Slavery was allowed in the Old Testament and in the New. The Bible condemns sexual immorality, gossip, and greed, but it never gets around to condemning slavery. But I still think the Bible, even the Old Testament, teaches us that God hates slavery.

We have to acknowledge that "slavery" is loaded with meaning now that it didn't have then. Slavery in ancient times was primarily related to financial debt and war. In the former case it was their version of bankruptcy — you could sell yourself for money to pay your bills. In the latter case it was simply part of their approach to war; you would take your enemies lands, treasure, livestock, and labor force. Taking their labor force took their young males (reducing their chance for a reprisal) and gave you workers for your own needs (whether you wanted them to build pyramids or work in fields).

Being a slave in ancient days wasn't fun; you were property with no more rights than a mule. But it wasn't the same thing as the more modern version that looked at a vast swath of humanity as sub-human. It was typical human might-makes-right, not colonial you-are-lucky-to-serve-us. So ancient slavery was not as odious as the Western version eventually became.

And God still hated it. He showed it in four rules he gave Israel:

1) No Israelite slaves
The Israelites weren't allowed to enslave each other. Their version of debt slavery was what we would call indentured servitude — with benefits (Deut 15:12-15).

How the Israelites were expected to treat each other was supposed to be a picture of proper behavior — this is what God wanted from everyone everywhere for everyone everywhere. What God's law teaches is that when people are poor, you should do whatever you can to help them help themselves and if necessary to just help them. You leave the corners of your fields unharvested, you don't charge them interest on loans. You give them food. And if things get so bad that they have to sell themselves for money, you don't treat them like slaves. They don't become your property, they become part of your family. You accept their labor for a few years and then you send them on their way with gifts to help them restart their life. They were supposed to show the world debt slavery didn't need to exist.

2) Shield the runaways
"If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them" (Deut 23:15-16).

Remember the stories of the Underground Railroad? Remember the stories of slave owners pursuing runaways hundreds of miles? Which side does it sound like God was on? Yearning for freedom is part of the human condition. When people can't take it anymore and work up the nerve to risk running away, God says to let them, shelter them.

3) Kill the kidnappers
One of the fundamental aspects of Western race-based slavery was the kidnapping of people to sell as slaves. This was a capital offense is Israel (Deut 24:7, Ex 21:16).

4) Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18)
Yeah, that one is still on the books. Was this applied as broadly as God desired? No. Jesus had to take them to task over that (cf, Luke 10:25-37). But knowing how God intended it to be applied, can we really argue that God was totally fine with people being treated as property?

Well, then, why did he permit some forms of it?

He modified what they were allowed to do, but he permitted pressed labor and debt slavery because, if I may borrow a phrase, their "hearts were hard" (Matt 19:8). This was a part of their world. He discouraged it — like divorce, like polygamy — but he didn't ban it outright. Why give them more rules they simply could not follow?

But the groundwork was there. Israel paid no attention to it. The early Christians waffled over it for the same reasons. It was a worldview shift that was hard for them to make.

It took centuries for our moral imagination to catch up with God. And yet there is still slavery in this world. There is still slavery in the United States. So what are we going to do about it?

See also:
Review: Not for Sale
On Human Trafficking