Does The Bible Condemn Slavery?

April 6, 2004 | comtedemaistre

[ComtedeMaistre]

I had an interesting debate yesterday with a group of pro-life activists, who are trying to make their case against abortion, by comparing our society's tolerance for abortion with the tolerance for slavery that existed in America in the 1800s.

I am pro-life, and I am supportive of the goals of the pro-life activists. And I also agree with them that slavery is an outdated practice, that goes against the declaration of independence, and the idea of liberty on which this country was founded.

But I was worried about attempts to misrepresent the teachings of the Bible, about what it designates as sinful or not. It is clear that the Bible prohibits abortion, because in the 10 Commandments, there is an explicit prohibition against killing. Murder was wrong 200 years ago, 500 years ago, or even 2000 years ago, and the Christian Church has always been consistent in its teaching against the taking of innocent human life.

But does the Bible have a similar prohibition against slavery? If it does, I am not aware of it. Perhaps some of you freepers who know your Bible well, can comment on this matter.

[alancarp]

There were various Biblical reasons for slavery: indebtedness, captured enemies, etc. Others have already discussed the topic of just treatment of slaves.

But the rubber meets the road in this aspect: Thou Shalt Not Kill. Abortion is the killing of a child who has God's gift of life in it.

There is no "Thou shalt not enslave." Nothing of the sort. Slavery is not killing, either. So for someone to try and compare the two makes no sense to me. At best, we're talking about a violation of freedom or civil rights with slavery, which cannot compare to the deprivation of life itself.

[And as an aside, I don't understand the slavery reparation people, either: if they want compensation for past crimes, then the way to go might better be related to the murders of relatives that took place, which have no statute of limitations, and in which the harm is indisputable.]

So I would not entertain the debate, for if handled on the terms of your opponent, you would have to accept that "apple=orange" from the very start.

[Cicero]

I don't remember the exact dates, but there was a council that discussed Spanish enslavement of the Indians in South America, and the Pope pronounced against it. The Church opposed slavery in South America, but the Conquistadores went ahead and did it anyway. But the practice gradually died out.

[mcg1969]

I honestly feel like we have to be very careful not to shout where Scripture chooses to remain silent. And indeed, the only explicit prohibition of slavery I can think of in Scripture is the injunction against making fellow Israelites slaves in the Pentateuch. Where Scripture is not silent is when it comes to the treatment of slaves, of course.

I have a feeling that we modern readers tend to conflate our notions of slavery with those of the Biblical era. The American institution of slavery was truly evil in many respects, including the forcible abduction and despicable treatment of (most) of its victims. Thus I think that we could make a very convincing case that Scripture prohibits the practice of African slavery practiced in the United States up until its eventual prohibition.

I think it's much harder to make the case that Christian doctrine prohibits all slavery of any kind. But hey, let's give it a shot anyway, remembering of course what I said in the first paragraph.

The Old Testament is replete with reminders that the LORD God delivered the Israelites from slavery. In addition, the delivery of the Israelites into slavery again was depicted as a punishment. For example, Ezra 9:9 says, "Though we are slaves, our God has not deserted us in our bondage." Thus I do think that there is a general theme that the state of bondage is a harmful or oppresive fate; and if so, it would seem clear that as Christians it would not be acceptable for us to impose that fate on others.

Where this argument gets difficult is that there were explicit commands made to the Israelites to enslave certain peoples. But given that there were also commands to kill certain peoples, and we're comfortable accepting that such practices are wrong today, I think we can argue past that :)

Anyway, this is by no means complete, these are just my thoughts. I wish you the best in your studies.

[Cicero]

As you say, modern slavery tended to be different and worse than ancient slavery. Another difference was that modern slavery was racist. Blacks were viewed as different from other people, or as not really human. That was, strangely enough, a kind of Enlightenment scientific component. It was connected with the modern idea of Progress and with evolutionary theory, which argued that some "races" were inherently inferior.

In ancient times, it was the luck of the draw whether you were enslaved. Weak or conquered people ended up as slaves, but not because they belonged to a particular race.

[spunkets]

Thou shalt not steal. Slavery is the theft of an individual's sovereignty of will.

[BSunday]

Good point. I would also like to add to that, in the New Testament, the Greek word doulos which is the word translated slave in the slave passages, also means servant and is thus translated in other parts of the bible. Basically it's up to the determination of the translator based on what HE thinks of the context, as to whether doulos is translated slave or servant.

[The Other Harry]

Your vaniety posts are not news. Put them in chat.

[dasboot]

exactomundo baddabing ping:

Thou shalt not steal. Slavery is the theft of an individual's sovereignty of will.

[VRWC_minion]

One of the first problems is the meaning of slavery. Jewish slaves had significant rights that included instant freedom if they were beaten, rights to asylum from other Jews simply upon their request and inheritance rights. A better comparison to modern day is a slave is equivalent to an employee.

[Zack Nguyen]

Yes, slavery is forbidden in the Bible now. Check the following:

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - "We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteousbut for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers..."

1 Corthinians 7:21 - "Were you a slave when you were claled? Don't let it trouble you - although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

Philemon :15 - "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good - no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."

The reason I say "now" is because slavery was allowed in the Old Testament. Jews were allowed to enslave pagans of other nations. They were not allowed to enslave a fellow Jew, one of the faithful. Believers were to be enslaved only to God.

There are some who believe that this was symbolic, like so much else in the OT, of man's hopelessness without salvation in Christ. Pagans, who were enslaved already with their pagan gods and enslaved by their pagan rulers, were enslaved by believers as a visible reminder of the curse they put on themselves.

Today, the covenant of Jesus Christ is for all nations everywhere. Therefore we have no idea who will be saved tomorrow and who won't be. Therefore slavery is unacceptable everywhere, because anyone can follow Christ, and should therefore be enslaved only to God. So the slavery practiced int he American South, which often involved Christian masters and Christian slaves, was especially an abomination to God. But any kind of slavery is offensive.

The base of the abolitionist movement was made up of a lot of Christians because they understood it to be an issue of the rights of man.

[AD from SpringBay]

I like the letter Paul wrote to Philemon.

[Qwinn]

The Catholic Church also came out strongly against slavery on the Canary Islands. I believe that was somewhere in the 13th or 14th centuries.

Qwinn

[orionblamblam]

> for menstealers...

Not required for slavery to exist. Someone can (historically... not justification) sell themselves or their offspring into slavery; slaves can be taken in the form of POWs or other military conquest, or a religious, political or ehtnic group might find themselves on the wrong side of the kings views of things.

What I think this means is just that... kidnapping people, like taking someone off the road at night.

[twigs]

I agree. The racist element was new; in the past, any conquered people became slaves, even those of the conqueror's own ethnic group. The racism inherent in our slavery cannot be defended by any word from the Bible. It's interesting how our perceptions towards other people took a definite dive when we, as a culture, left the Bible as the primary source of truth and adopted science.

[orionblamblam]

> But the rubber meets the road in this aspect: Thou Shalt Not Kill. Abortion is the killing of a child who has God's gift of life in it.

"Thou shallt not kill" is a commandment that does not exist. It's "murder" which is a different order of things. Now, whether or not aborting a fetus is murder is a separate arguement... but "killing" is permissible (and hardly avoidable).

[VRWC_minion]

Gentiles no longer slaves
Gentiles, who were not under the Law of Moses, also become inheritors through Christ, so at this point Paul begins to use the word you again: "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, `Abba, Father.' So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir" (4:6-7).

Since God had given the Holy Spirit to these gentile Christians, that was proof that they were his children, with the right to inherit the promise. They were no longer slaves under a restrictive authority. But what kind of slavery had Jesus redeemed them from?

Paul explains: "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods" (4:9). They had been enslaved by pagan religions.

"But now that you know God--or rather are known by God--how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?" (4:9). The Gentile Christians, having been rescued from slavery, were thinking of returning to bondage. They wouldn't have put it in those words, of course, but Paul is pointing out that this is what it amounts to.

Apparently they were being tempted with a different sort of slavery than what they came out of. They were being told that they had to be circumcised and that they had to obey the Law of Moses (4:21; 5:2-4). They had come out of pagan principles but were in danger of going back into another set of rules--another nonfaith approach to religion.

(Paul uses the uncommon Greek word stoicheia here for principles of the Galatian heresy, the same word he used in 4:3 for the slavery "we" had under the old covenant "basic principles." The context of the letter makes it clear that the slavery the Galatians were falling back into was an obligation to old covenant customs.)

Paul then mentions one way they were falling back into servitude: "You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!" (4:10). In a heresy that involved circumcision and the Law of Moses, it is not difficult to figure out what sort of days, months, seasons and years were being advocated. The old covenant said a lot about special times.

But if Paul was talking about the Sabbath and festivals, why didn't he say so? It is because the Galatians were coming out of one religion and into another. Paul used words that applied to both religions to point out the similarities involved. Pagan religions had their special days, months, seasons and years; so did the old covenant. They have a different set of days, but it is a similar idea. The Galatians had come out religious bondage, and were going back into a religious bondage.

So Paul asks: How could you do such a thing? Can't you see how foolish this is? Don't you know that this can enslave you all over again?

Paul does not say exactly how they were observing these special days. He did not say they should observe them in a better way or a different way. He just said that the way they were observing them was a form of bondage, of feeling obligated to something that was not obligatory.

[Qwinn]

Here, I found some interesting information concerning the Church's positions on slavery historically.

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html


The Church was pretty consistent in it's opposition to -racial- slavery, which didn't appear in widespread form until roughly the 15th century.

Qwinn

[shineon]

This reminds me of a scene from WC Fields.

A friend finds him flipping through the Bible. Shocked at the thought of WC contemplating conversion to the straight and narrow his friend asks. "What on earth are you doing?"

WC's reply?

"Looking for loopholes."

That slavery is condemned in the Bible for the Christian heart is without controversy.

However the Bible is gracious to the unsaved world, advising that by our Christian behavior we can win the lost.

So the Bible advocates first winning the slave owner through example, then it assumes after becoming a Christian the slave owner will of his own accord give up on treating his fellow man as a slave.

Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. Not to add to or change the Mosaic law which already condemns slavery.

Do some research on Google about the abolitionist movement. Many whose leaders were preachers and learned theologins, some of them of African descent.

Then look into the darkness of your own heart, and ask God to send you the light one more time on this question. In other words - what would Jesus do?

Finally many of the early Christians were the lowest and downtrodden of the society of that day. Women and slaves made up the bulk of early Christianity.

Why? Because they spiritually found a friend in Jesus. And they truly were felt set free out of conditions they found themselves in.

And who is your friend you might ask...

Read the story about the good samaritan...

[orionblamblam]

> The racism inherent in our slavery cannot be defended by any word from the Bible.

And yet the Bible is the source of that racism (at least today, with the white supremecists), with claims of "mud people" or whatever.

> It's interesting how our perceptions towards other people took a definite dive when we, as a culture, left the Bible as the primary source of truth and adopted science.

Yeah. Damned heretics and their beliefs that the Earth goes 'round the sun... everything went downhill from there! The Inquisition was the pinnacle of human achievement!

[Richard Kimball]

The term "slave" in the Bible is different from the term we use to mean slave today. In the OT, quite a few people entered into slavery willingly. The owner had as many obligations toward the slave as the slave had toward the owner. The owner was not to separate a family, and was responsible for clothing, feeding and caring for the family. After seven years of service, the owner was to give a slave the option of being set free, and if he was set free, the owner was obligated to also free his family and give him enough sheep, etc, to start his own herd (that's where the 40 acres and a mule came from). If the slave decided to remain a slave, he was the property of the owner for life.

In some respects, many of the "slaves" in the Bible were what you would consider an unpaid apprentice. After seven years, they were given the choice of striking out on their own, or staying with the company, so to speak.

Also, when the OT mentions slaves in many instances, remember that the fact that the Bible mentions something does not mean that God condones it. The accounts of David and Bathsheba and Lott and his daughters being prime examples.