In the NT, Slavery is broadly condemned.

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Have you checked the Septuagint to see if it uses the same word? My guess is it does, as there is a high correlation between it and the Greek New Testament. I would look it up personally except I am feeling poorly and I can’t recall where I put mine, but if you find an interlinear it should be easy enough to verify.

ἀνδραποδιστής is a hápax legómenon, so if some one wants to call it kidnapping so be it. Although the prefix ἀνδρα is hard to meld into kidnapping.

 

[The Liturgist]

ἀνδραποδιστής is a hápax legómenon, so if some one wants to call it kidnapping so be it. Although the prefix ἀνδρα is hard to meld into kidnapping.

I believe your interpretation is correct. My suggestion is that you cross check with the Septuagint (the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, from around 200 BC, which is the version usually quoted in the New Testament) because if it uses the same words for kidnapping as the New Testament that would bolster your argument. Also a check of the two most important New Testament translations made by the Early Church, the Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate, would be interesting. I can link you to an interlinear Peshitta.

 

[The Liturgist]

Although the prefix ἀνδρα is hard to meld into kidnapping.

Indeed I think you are correct that it means slavery.

Now there is obviously some overlap in that many first generation slaves were kidnapped and virtually all were taken captive or otherwise coerced, since no sane person would voluntarily make themselves a slave to another man.

Kidnapping however refers specifically to the abduction of someone for any purpose, and only some persons kidnapped wind up as slaves, frequently sex slaves, or wind up in forced marriages, since in antiquity abduction was in some societies seen as a legitimate means of courtship.

For this reason I agree with your view expressed in this thread that it is highly unlikely that the Greek word in question refers to kidnappinf, rather, I think it refers slavery, from an obvious etymology based on the concept of stealing men and their associated labor output from their own society, that their labor output may be exploited by a slaveowner.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Indeed I think you are correct that it means slavery.

Now there is obviously some overlap in that many first generation slaves were kidnapped and virtually all were taken captive or otherwise coerced, since no sane person would voluntarily make themselves a slave to another man.

Kidnapping however refers specifically to the abduction of someone for any purpose, and only some persons kidnapped wind up as slaves, frequently sex slaves, or wind up in forced marriages, since in antiquity abduction was in some societies seen as a legitimate means of courtship.

For this reason I agree with your view expressed in this thread that it is highly unlikely that the Greek word in question refers to kidnappinf, rather, I think it refers slavery, from an obvious etymology based on the concept of stealing men and their associated labor output from their own society, that their labor output may be exploited by a slaveowner.

Sad fact of ancient human history: You end up on the wrong side of a war, you end up being a slave.

Evangelism and obedience to the master. I wonder if in ancient times conversion of the slave master did occur through Christian obedience. Maybe we can't see it today, but did the master see a marked difference between a pagan slave and a Christian slave?

 

[parousia70]

Seems to me, the same God who said "thou shall not steal, kill, eat shellfish or wear colthing made of mixed fibers, could have also said "Thall shall not own other people as property" if He found such a thing to be immoral or unjust.

However, God Clearly states that your Slaves are indeed "your property" and as long as they don't die in the process within a couple of days, it is moral and just to beat them senseless as much as you like. (Exodus 21:21)

 

[The Liturgist]

Sad fact of ancient human history: You end up on the wrong side of a war, you end up being a slave.

Evangelism and obedience to the master. I wonder if in ancient times conversion of the slave master did occur through Christian obedience. Maybe we can't see it today, but did the master see a marked difference between a pagan slave and a Christian slave?

That is an interesting question and if so, it might have been a contributing factor to the rapid expansion of Christianity.

 

[The Liturgist]

Seems to me, the same God who said "thou shall not steal, kill, eat shellfish or wear colthing made of mixed fibers, could have also said "Thall shall not own other people as property" if He found such a thing to be immoral or unjust.

However, God Clearly states that your Slaves are indeed "your property" and as long as they don't die in the process within a couple of days, it is moral and just to beat them senseless as much as you like. (Exodus 21:21)

Those are all particular aspects of the Torah, which was only ever applicable for the Jewish people, and which is clearly no longer in effect since our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ fulfilled it. Several things the Torah forbade, such as eating shellfish, are now permitted, and several things it permitted, such as divorce and polygamy, are now forbidden.

 

[parousia70]

Those are all particular aspects of the Torah, which was only ever applicable for the Jewish people, and which is clearly no longer in effect since our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ fulfilled it. Several things the Torah forbade, such as eating shellfish, are now permitted, and several things it permitted, such as divorce and polygamy, are now forbidden.

Got it. So you're saying that at one time God considered owning other people as property and beating them, as long as they don't die, to be moral and Just, but He no longer does?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

That is an interesting question and if so, it might have been a contributing factor to the rapid expansion of Christianity.

Why the rapid expansion of Christianity? Not enough scholarship has been done in this area.

Years ago, I read an article that put forth the hypothesis it was the usage of parables among the early evangelists that help expand Christianity in the early days. In Matthew 13 , Jesus gives the meaning of the first two parables, articulates three more then asks the disciples if they understood them (vs. 51) They said "yes."

In re-telling the parables to the poor, enslaved and agrarian people in the first and second century, did the parables help and accelerate the meaning of the gospel far more then than now?

I am intrigued with this idea, because I am weak in understanding some of the parables.

 

[The Liturgist]

Why the rapid expansion of Christianity? Not enough scholarship has been done in this area.

Years ago, I read an article that put forth the hypothesis it was the usage of parables among the early evangelists that help expand Christianity in the early days. In Matthew 13 , Jesus gives the meaning of the first two parables, articulates three more then asks the disciples if they understood them (vs. 51) They said "yes."

In re-telling the parables to the poor, enslaved and agrarian people in the first and second century, did the parables help and accelerate the meaning of the gospel far more then than now?

I am intrigued with this idea, because I am weak in understanding some of the parables.

It is fascinating. I have read a few ideas on the subject myself; I think ultimately the rapid growth of the early Church is miraculous, and I think it was connected to the stalwart faith and gracious behavior of Christians confronted with martyrdom. The theory you mention is very interesting and I haven’t seen it before.

I think that many things contributed to the rapid growth, for example, the parables mentioned by you, and the martyrdoms i mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Christians caring for the sick during the pandemics of the third century and thus acquiring an immunity that Pagans and others who avoided the sick lacked, the popularity of Christianity among women because of its prohibition of infanticide, which fathers could legally do in the Roman Empire, but Christians could not without being excommunicated, therefore, many women would convert and only marry Christian men, furthermore, Christian mothers in several cases influenced their children so that they eventually renounced Paganism and converted.

 

[The Liturgist]

Got it. So you're saying that at one time God considered owning other people as property and beating them, as long as they don't die, to be moral and Just, but He no longer does?

The purpose of the law was clearly to protect slaves owned by the Hebrews, as opposed to being an endorsement of the concept. God does not change, God is love, and slavery cannot be a loving relationship, so we know it existed in the law, like many aspects of the Law, to restrain evil, as opposed to providing a definition of what is actually decent, moral and good behavior.

We know that slavery was allowed, like divorce, with restrictions, due to the hardness of mens’ hearts, like divorce. And it is now no longer permitted Christians, just as Christians who divorce and remarry have committed the sin of adultery.

I suggest you read the Epistle to the Galatians for a fuller understanding of what tne Law actually was, and the purpose it served.

 

[zippy2006]

For this reason I agree with your view expressed in this thread that it is highly unlikely that the Greek word in question refers to kidnappinf

This is hair-splitting that fails to understand the point at issue. If by "kidnapping" we mean, "abducting for the sake of slavery," all my points still hold.* This focus on etymologies is a red herring. The point is that "abducting for the sake of slavery" is not the same as slavery, and therefore a prohibition against the former is not a prohibition against the latter. Christian practice at the time follows this fact.

The other <point> is that there is no real reason to believe that the seventh commandment prohibited slavery. There is no reason to believe it prohibited "abduction for the sake of slavery," but even if it did, this would still fall short of a prohibition of slavery.

* This is the construal of "kidnapping" that I was assuming for the sake of this discussion, but I also assume a broader definition holds. The bizarre thing is that you seem to be implying that abduction is only impermissible if it is not a means to slavery, which I think is deeply mistaken. Kidnapping is prohibited, and that includes kidnapping as a means to slavery.

 

[zippy2006]

1. ἀνδραποδιστής is etymologically equivalent to “man stealing”
2. The NT prohibits ἀνδραποδιστής
3. The decalogue prohibits theft
4. Therefore, the NT prohibits slavery

This is a mess of invalid reasoning, and the OP has shown no interest in attempting to justify it.

Further, it grasps at the straw of a single verse of the NT, ignoring entire epistles such as that to Philemon.

 

[linux.poet]

One of the particularities of the American Civil War in 1865 was that the Northern Abolitionists, who wanted to end slavery, pulled out their Bibles and denounced slavery as a sin that Christianity had done away with. I'm surprised that this verse hasn't been used to make the case, as it would seem to support it:

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Ironically, if you look at the context, Paul was talking about freedom from the law, which regulated slavery. Freedom from the Law's regulations meant that slave masters could treat them as harshly as they wanted, and "man-steal" as much as they wanted.

Meanwhile, the Southern slaveholders pulled out their Bibles and used the of passages admonishing slaves to submit to their masters as an okay for what they were doing.

Therefore, the Bible regulates slavery and makes extensive comments on how it should be done, but it makes no comment on the morality or immorality of slavery as an institution. This institution is as neutral as marriage in how the Bible treats it. It is neither moral or immoral; it simply is..

The only difference is that slavery in the OT/NT has been replaced with the modern practice of employment today. Employment was necessary for all who did not own their own lands or businesses. There were some freemen day laborers, similar to freelancers in the modern gig economy, who worked for denarii in others' fields, and there are others who agreed to become slaves for others for a period of years, like modern employees. The institution has improved in terms of human rights, but it's still there because not all of us can afford arable farmland. In fact, given that farms are so efficient few people need to work them, more of us are economic slaves than ever before.

What? Christian slave owners?

I mean, there are directions given in Paul's letters to "masters" in context of slaves. A master is a slave owner.

5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your [a]masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. [...]

9 And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Masters, grant your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

I'm also not sure where you're coming from with your "Paul condemns slavery in 1 Timothy" argument, because in 1 Timothy Paul says this:

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2 Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brothers or sisters, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

This book literally says that some slaves have "believers as their masters". This means that Christian slave owners did exist in Paul's time.

Theft of labor (James 5) by definition means a slave master doesn't treat his slaves well. NT is very clear on this.

James 5 refers to the work of free laborers who were owed wages, as opposed to a slave who was paid no wages at all.

No, kidnapping is taking a person from point a to point b by force. The Bible text is clear. ἀνδραποδιστής means man-stealing.

How is man-stealing not taking a person from point a to b by force? Clearly one wouldn't steal a man and leave him where he was, would they? That would do nothing. You take him to somewhere where he can't escape easily and put him to work.

Keeping in mind that all mankind is already in slavery.

We are all spiritual slaves, either to righteousness or sin. Spiritual slavery is distinct from economic slavery. Probably economic slavery is a picture of the spiritual slavery, but the two are not one and the same.

It's interesting that marriage, which is a picture of Christ and the church, is placed alongside slavery, which is a picture of our spiritual condition in relationship to God, in both Colossians and Ephesians. At the end of the day, we are all slaves to God, or to our own sin. Our relationship to God, our spiritual condition, "owns" us - we are not free. We are God's property.

Non-responsive to slavery to righteousness is good in every sense

Uh, no. That is the depths of sin, if you are unresponsive to slavery to righteousness. That is evil.

It is fascinating. I have read a few ideas on the subject myself; I think ultimately the rapid growth of the early Church is miraculous, and I think it was connected to the stalwart faith and gracious behavior of Christians confronted with martyrdom. The theory you mention is very interesting and I haven’t seen it before.

I think that many things contributed to the rapid growth, for example, the parables mentioned by you, and the martyrdoms i mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Christians caring for the sick during the pandemics of the third century and thus acquiring an immunity that Pagans and others who avoided the sick lacked, the popularity of Christianity among women because of its prohibition of infanticide, which fathers could legally do in the Roman Empire, but Christians could not without being excommunicated, therefore, many women would convert and only marry Christian men, furthermore, Christian mothers in several cases influenced their children so that they eventually renounced Paganism and converted.

I would encourage you to read The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixie. The early church was spread through violence as Christians destroyed pagan temples and forced secular philosophers into hiding. That is not to say that there weren't other factors, but that definitely was one. Christianity functioned as a revolution against the Roman authority and pantheon of false gods. People got tired of absolute rule and were looking for a better authority, and Christ was kind, loving, and his commandments made sense.

Christianity also spread quickly because it was true (500 in-person witnesses to the resurrection and the miracles of the Apostles were very convincing). Thanks to the Greeks, everyone was looking for truth and wisdom already, so what happens when real Truth shows up? It spreads like wildfire and people adopt it.

God chose the right moment for Christ's arrival and precisely arranged the historical forces to spread His Gospel rapidly to the ends of the Earth.

 

[Clare73]

Uh, no. That is the depths of sin, if you are unresponsive to slavery to righteousness. That is evil.

Thanks. My meaning was that the poster was unresponsive to my point of Biblical slavery to righteousness.

 

[David Kent]

And yet Paul sent the run away slave, Onesimus, back to his owner, Philemon

Paul sent him back as a brother not a slave.

 

[Clare73]

Paul sent him back as a brother not a slave.

Paul set him back as a slave who was his brother (Phm 14-16, Eph 6:5, 1 Tim 6:1, Tit 2:9).

 

[Hawkins]

The big picture is, God doesn't ordain slavery. God has the ability to turn human weaknesses and bad things to be good to humans.

Slavery is an establishment made by the most moral human kind back to the point of history. It's not God's priority to counter such (or any) an establishment with its influence from the most moral human kind. It is rather condemned in the broader scope that everyone is a sinner. God's priority here on earth is to save souls.

God's bottom line set for the Jews is disallowing them to truly enslave their fellow Hebrew. However, by the influence of the secular slavery system (which God knew well that it's influence is hard to counter), the Jews even failed to keep the bottom line set.

Jeremiah 34:9-11
Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage.
So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free.
But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again.

The Jews even failed to keep the bottom line, not to mention how to counter the influence from the most moral human kind as a whole. Resistance is futile in this case.

The upside of a system established by the most moral human kind back to point of history is that, all all owners are bad (as they are composed of the most moral humans). Some humans have to sell themselves in order to survive poverty. The main purpose of a covenant granted to humans is for the assessment of one's faith and obedience, such that one may pass the Final Judgment to be saved. The 'good' (God turned it to) position of slaves (enslaved by the most moral humans) is that, they can show both faith and obedience more efficiently to bear good witnesses. On the other hand, even the most evil (but sane) humans will treasure obedient slaves. Obedient slaves are actually better protected when they are among the disobedient slaves.

Paul skillfully condemned the slave traders (i.e., God doesn't ordain human enslaving activities and He doesn't underestimate the influence possibly caused by the most moral human kind either),

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine


On the other hand, the original (before it's abused due to the influence from its secular counterpart) Jewish slavery system is no more than a labor system without which the poor Hebrews may have to sell themselves to the gentile owners.

 

[Clare73]

The big picture is, God doesn't ordain slavery. God has the ability to turn human weaknesses and bad things to be good to humans.
Slavery is an establishment made by the most moral human kind back to the point of history. It's not God's priority to counter such (or any) an establishment with its influence from the most moral human kind. It is rather condemned in the broader scope that everyone is a sinner. God's priority here on earth is to save souls.
God's bottom line set for the Jews is disallowing them to truly enslave their fellow Hebrew. However, by the influence of the secular slavery system (which God knew well that it's influence is hard to counter), the Jews even failed to keep the bottom line set.
Jeremiah 34:9-11
Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage.
So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free.
But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again.
The Jews even failed to keep the bottom line, not to mention how to counter the influence from the most moral human kind as a whole. Resistance is futile in this case.
The upside of a system established by the most moral human kind back to point of history is that, all all owners are bad (as they are composed of the most moral humans). Some humans have to sell themselves in order to survive poverty. The main purpose of a covenant granted to humans is for the assessment of one's faith and obedience, such that one may pass the Final Judgment to be saved. The 'good' (God turned it to) position of slaves (enslaved by the most moral humans) is that, they can show both faith and obedience more efficiently to bear good witnesses. On the other hand, even the most evil (but sane) humans will treasure obedient slaves. Obedient slaves are actually better protected when they are among the disobedient slaves.

Paul skillfully condemned the slave traders

Paul condemned man stealers, not slave traders who buy and sell legitimate slaves.

(i.e., God doesn't ordain human enslaving activities and He doesn't underestimate the influence possibly caused by the most moral human kind either),

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine


On the other hand, the original (before it's abused due to the influence from its secular counterpart) Jewish slavery system is no more than a labor system without which the poor Hebrews may have to sell themselves to the gentile owners.

 

[Hawkins]

Paul condemned man stealers, not slave traders who buy and sell legitimate slaves.

That remains your own interpretation. It never limits to man stealers. It is just as literal as slave traders, though the word itself has the two fold meaning of kidnappers and slave dealers.

Strong:
from a derivative of a compound of <G435> (aner) and <G4228> (pous); an enslaver (as bringing men to his feet) :- men-stealer.

The primary meaning of word is actually more in favor of an enslaver (by bringing men to his feet). So the verse literally condemns enslaving itself.