Slavery in the bible.

[War_Eagle]

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only to please them while they are watching, but with sincerity of heart and fear of the Lord.

What you've cited are verses written to indentured servants regarding how they are to represent Christ to their masters, not a verse justifying chattel slavery or slave trading.

 

[Par5]

What you've cited are verses written to indentured servants regarding how they are to represent Christ to their masters, not a verse justifying chattel slavery or slave trading.

It says slaves, not indentured servants.

 

[War_Eagle]

It says slaves, not indentured servants.

Rome didn't have chattel slavery. It had indenture.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I hear this claim a lot. And yet, when I ask atheists what verse they allegedly used to justify slavery, the atheists can never give an example.

Well, we atheists are not usually admitted as experts on the Bible. But you could instead read the sermons and books of pro-slavery pastors of the slave-owning South.

 

[Par5]

No. And nowhere in the Bible does God command such a thing.

If you believe that what is described in the Bible as slavery is comparable to the slavery in Colonial times in America or slavery of today, you do not have a correct understanding of scripture. If you believe that God said that having slaves in the Bible was a righteous act, you do not understand the Bible.



No sin is righteous before God, by definition. And when you stand before God, you will be compared to the perfect standard, that is Jesus Christ. You will be unable to compare your sin to another sin, nor will you be able to compare yourself to another sinful person whom you think is far more evil than you. God requires absolute perfect which is His sovereign right as the eternal Creator. And since you did not self-create, you have absolutely no grounds on which to judge God, your Creator.

The fact that the biblical god gave instructions on the keeping of slaves can in no way be construed as a condemnation of slavery. It shows an acceptance of slavery.
I am glad you say that it is not morally acceptable to consider another human being to be your property. That, however, seems to put you at variance with your god.
Exodus 21:20,21 20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…

 

[Strathos]

What you've cited are verses written to indentured servants regarding how they are to represent Christ to their masters, not a verse justifying chattel slavery or slave trading.

Although I agree, it is true that some slave owners did use these verses to try to justify slavery. They were incorrect to do so, but they still made the arguments.

 

[elliott95]

..
Where did you get the idea that I don't see slavery as being wrong and needless to say, illegal?...

Actually, I don't have that idea about you, and I never once stated that you don't see slavery as being wrong and illegal.

Do you believe it is morally acceptable to consider another human being to be your property?

What part of the "No" that I initially answered that question with are you having a hard time with?

 

[JoeP222w]

The fact that the biblical god gave instructions on the keeping of slaves can in no way be construed as a condemnation of slavery. It shows an acceptance of slavery.
I am glad you say that it is not morally acceptable to consider another human being to be your property. That, however, seems to put you at variance with your god.
Exodus 21:20,21 20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…

No. God was dealing with an already existing system that was out of control and setting boundaries on it. Having a servant (a more proper perspective for the time in history and culture) was a way to keep a servant/slave alive. There was no welfare system then at all. So an enemy captured in a war, or someone who had brought themselves into massive debt, became a servant/slave to survive. And if they were treated well by the family they served, many chose to remain servants for the remainder of their life. If they did not become a slave/servant, their life was pretty much forfeit. Was it a perfect situation? No. Did God accept it as righteous? No, and I would assert you cannot prove from proper exegesis of scripture that to own slaves/servants was commanded for all believers/Christians at all times and in all places as a universal rule and a righteous deed.

Moreover, if God did not directly condemn something in the Bible, that does not automatically mean that that thing is automatically righteous. For example, the use of heroin or crack cocaine is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, so by following your logic, does that mean that drug use such as heroin or crack cocaine is automatically a righteous thing? I say no.


Not the best translation you are referring to there, so no I am not in variance to God.

Translation closer to the original language [ESV]:

Exodus 21:21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

The slave/servant was part of the way the Master made money. When the Master made money, he was able to provide for his servant/slave.

I think you are making the mistake of comparing modern day slavery to slavery in the time of the ancient Israelites, which is not an accurate comparison at all.

 

[elliott95]

Although I agree, it is true that some slave owners did use these verses to try to justify slavery. They were incorrect to do so, but they still made the arguments.

It was an argument that was solved in the nineteenth century. Today, except for fundamentalist Islamist extremist groups, the immorality of owning slaves is more universally accepted than the question of whether or not the earth is flat.
Outside of criminal groups, who don't care about moral questions, or Islamists, the wrongness of slavery is universally accepted.
You will get more people arguing over the shape of the earth than you will get people arguing about the immorality of slavery.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Moreover, if God did not directly condemn something in the Bible, that does not automatically mean that that thing is automatically righteous. For example, the use of heroin or crack cocaine is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, so by following your logic, does that mean that drug use such as heroin or crack cocaine is automatically a righteous thing? I say no.

But what if the Bible gave us some instruction on how to take crack? Would you take that as condemnation or acceptance?

 

[JoeP222w]

But what if the Bible gave us some instruction on how to take crack? Would you take that as condemnation or acceptance?

The Bible does no such thing, so the point is moot. The canon of scripture is closed, so to speak in such hypothetical situations is not prudent nor wise. Where the Bible is silent, it is dangerous to make up doctrine.

Moreover, God would never command us to sin, and call it a righteous act, for that would be contradictory and God never contradicts Himself.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The Bible does no such thing, so the point is moot. The canon of scripture is closed, so to speak in such hypothetical situations is not prudent nor wise. Where the Bible is silent, it is dangerous to make up doctrine.

Moreover, God would never command us to sin, and call it a righteous act, for that would be contradictory and God never contradicts Himself.

The point is not moot. The bible does give us instructions on how to keep slaves. The question is how do we take that? Does God see slavery as righteous? Or is he merely tolerating some unrighteous behaviour due to cultural necessity?

 

[Almost there]

I believe that the modern word for what was sometimes called slavery in the old testament is "employee".

Slavery comes in many forms. Indentured slavery was pretty common back then. Survival was not as easy as it is today and people entered into some pretty wild agreements in that fairly anarchic world just to survive.

 

[Everybodyknows]

So an enemy captured in a war, or someone who had brought themselves into massive debt, became a servant/slave to survive

A captured enemy was forced into slavery. Someone with debt entered willingly.

And if they were treated well by the family they served, many chose to remain servants for the remainder of their life.

Only if the slave was a fellow Israelite. There was no escape for the rest, even their children became your slaves too.

 

[elliott95]

I believe that the modern word for what was sometimes called slavery in the old testament is "employee".

Slavery comes in many forms. Indentured slavery was pretty common back then. Survival was not as easy as it is today and people entered into some pretty wild agreements in that fairly anarchic world just to survive.

That is an important point. The word 'Slavery' has not always had the connotations that it does now. It was not meant as a demeaning term in the Bible.

Other than the word 'employee', the term for certain forms of slavery described in the Bible has also been described by certain rabbis familiar with Biblical law as 'upwards social mobility'.
Basically it was preparing certain young women from the lower classes to marry the sons of the upper classes, thereby joining the two families together, like marriages once served to do.
In contrast, a common form of marriage in the ME is cousin marriage. This serves to keep the family wealth all in the same family.

Upward social mobility in the US once used to be aided by doctors marrying nurses and lawyers marrying legal secretaries. Now though, doctors marry doctors, and lawyers, lawyers, and the marriages of the lower classes have often broken down completely, as the gated communities keep their wealth to themselves. The poor get poorer, and the rich richer.
Biblical laws on employment, or servitude, or slavery, were designed as a counterbalance to that tendency.

 

[JoeP222w]

The bible does give us instructions on how to keep slaves.

You (nor I) are ancient Israelites under the covenant of Law. So your statement is not true.

The question is how do we take that?

In the proper cultural and historical context and the authorial intent of such passage, and not universally applying it to all time for all people.

Does God see slavery as righteous?

No. God never explicitly or implicitly says that slavery is universally righteous for all believers for all time.

Or is he merely tolerating some unrighteous behaviour due to cultural necessity?

He was dealing with an evil system for the people of that time under the covenant of Law alone.

 

[JoeP222w]

A captured enemy was forced into slavery.

And since they were a conquered enemy, their choice was either to enter into slavery or death (they were not good people in regards to the enemies of Israel). They were not considered citizens of Israel, unless they adopted the Jewish faith and agreed to the tenets of Judaism, so they did not have the same rights as the Jews. Was it a perfect system? No. But God was bringing more humane treatment into a corrupt system.

Only if the slave was a fellow Israelite. There was no escape for the rest, even their children became your slaves too.

They were supposed to both be treated fairly, Jew and Gentile. Even the foreigner was never meant to enter into slavery for their entire life, but they were supposed to be set free every by the 7th year of their servitude, Jew and Gentile, if I understand correctly.

 

[Soyeong]

Even in the 21st century, it is a sad fact the slavery is still happening in the world. Most people find this disgusting practice to be totally repugnant and immoral. Slavery was very common in biblical times and it seems strange that the biblical god did not condemn the practice of having slaves, but instead gave instructions on the keeping of slaves. The same god that condemned a man to death for simply gathering sticks on the Sabbath, a "crime" hardly in the same league as slavery.
So the question is quite simply this. Do you consider it morally acceptable to consider another human being to be your property?

If someone in the ANE couldn't pay their debts, then they could either beg, starve, or sell their future labor, and if they were able bodied, then begging wasn't an option, so slavery was an economic necessity. Furthermore, most people, especially women, were not able to survive on their own, so it was often to the advantage of someone to become a slave, where they would they would be cared for and have their basic needs met, especially if women were given the full status of becoming someone's wife. Someone who was released from slavery because they were mistreated often didn't result in long-term freedom, but in becoming someone else's slave. The major problems with slavery is when people are enslaved against their will, which the Bible forbids, and when slaves are mistreated, which the Bible also forbids.

A covenant is a very serious contract, where people would cut animals in two, stand between the halves, and say that they would become like these animals if they broke the terms of the covenant, so intentionally breaking the Sabbath was in violation of their covenant agreement, which comes with the death penalty. However, Jews do not have a history of carrying out the death penalty every time that the Law prescribed it, but rather they often imposed a fine instead. The harshness of the prescribed penalty was to show the seriousness of the offense, while the light penalty given was to show the mercy of God. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the Law, so if mercy is not evident in how someone carries out the Law, then they are not obeying it correctly. Mercy is given with the expectation that the person who committed the offense will repent and turn from continuing to commit that offense, but if someone does not seek mercy and is not repentant, then no mercy is given. We know that God is just and that He judges the heart, so the issue is not that picking up stick is such a horrible offense that anyone who does it should be killed, but rather the issue was that he was intentionally breaking the Sabbath and thereby his covenant agreement and that he was not repentant.

 

[Par5]

Actually, I don't have that idea about you, and I never once stated that you don't see slavery as being wrong and illegal.


What part of the "No" that I initially answered that question with are you having a hard time with?

Well, you did say, "Maybe Brits haven't got the message yet. Slavery is wrong, and illegal." I can only assume you were including me in that. As we both agree that slavery is wrong, why is it that the biblical god never said it was wrong. In fact, one of the biblical god's guidelines for keeping slaves was that a slave who died a couple of days later, as the result of a beating, did not merit the slaver being punished because the slave was his property. I realize this poses a problem for Christians to admit that it is morally unacceptable to consider another human being to be their property when their god described a slave as such. When your god is recorded as having said such a thing, it doesn't really give you much wriggle room, does it?

 

[Everybodyknows]

The major problems with slavery is when people are enslaved against their will, which the Bible forbids,

Where exactly does the Bible forbid enslaving people against their will?