Why is Slavery in the Bible?

Rygaku · Nov 13, 2015

We can go back and fourth but ill say it god of the bible is immoral and leave it as that.
He allows slavery and doesn't say anything against it neither jesus. Also god cannot
change his mind because he is unchanging and that there makes him default immoral
if god of the bible cannot change as the morality of man changes then why worship
a being is is immoral and will not change. We know slavery to be wrong because we
have empathy unlike god of the bible.

RDKirk · Nov 13, 2015

Hank77 said:
If I remember correctly, Roger Williams did not agree with much of the Puritan church teachings in Mass. When he spoke out they went after him and he had to hide for sometime. He left Mass. and founded the colony of RI. One of the most important things that he and others there wrote into RI's Constitution was the 'separation of church and state' and thus 'freedom of religion'. RI was a safe place for all denominations to live and worship as they chose to. He didn't believe in stealing the land from the Indians either, so he and others bought the land when they established RI. Cool guy.

What got Williams into the most trouble with the good burgers of Massachusetts Colony is that he was quite successful in evangelizing Indians, but he told the Indians, "Jesus is true, but those guys want to steal your land." He refused to push the evangelized Indians to join the white congregations and was a trusted Indian advisor in their dealings with the white colonists.

Yes, it was Williams who coined the term "hedge of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" which Jefferson later cribbed as "wall of separation between Church and State" when attempting to convince Williams' theological descendants at Danbury Baptist Church to accept the new federal government. And it was Williams' ideological descendants in Rhode Island who single-handedly blocked ratification of the Constitution until the First Amendment was written and ratified.

Roger Williams was a very cool guy.

That may be, but that didn't stop them from shipping problem Indians off to Africa on slave ships and contracting for black slaves to buy on the ships return. So I question the fact most of them believed it was sinful, they were very pious people those Purtains, but I will take your word for it. I do know that people like Richard Baxter, George Fox, and others spoke out against it.

Interestingly, there was a scandal in Britain when it was discovered that the Church of England had a Barbadows holding in the slave trade in the early 1800s. The fact that it was a scandal even then is because it was generally understood to be a sin.

But "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." To this day, lots of people lay aside righteousness for the Benjamins.

Rygaku · Nov 13, 2015

RDKirk said:
What got Williams into the most trouble with the good burgers of Massachusetts Colony is that he was quite successful in evangelizing Indians, but he told the Indians, "Jesus is true, but those guys want to steal your land." He refused to push the evangelized Indians to join the white congregations and was a trusted Indian advisor in their dealings with the white colonists.

Yes, it was Williams who coined the term "hedge of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" which Jefferson later cribbed as "wall of separation between Church and State" when attempting to convince Williams' theological descendants at Danbury Baptist Church to accept the new federal government. And it was Williams' ideological descendants in Rhode Island who single-handedly blocked ratification of the Constitution until the First Amendment was written and ratified.

Roger Williams was a very cool guy.

Interestingly, there was a scandal in Britain when it was discovered that the Church of England had a Barbadows holding in the slave trade in the early 1800s. The fact that it was a scandal even then is because it was generally understood to be a sin.

But "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." To this day, lots of people lay aside righteousness for the Benjamins.

Id say the money is the backer of evil money alone doesn't make it evil only those with bad intentions to begin with.

artiewhitefox · Nov 13, 2015

People make it to seem to be slavery in the bible. They that are poor serve the person that is rich. Rolls reverse when the poor person becomes rich. Nothing is stagnant. Jesus in one serves the other.it is not a one way street. The devil makes people to think God is unequal.

Hank77 · Nov 13, 2015

RDKirk said:
Roger Williams was a very cool guy.

Thanks for adding to my knowledge.

RDKirk said:
But "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." To this day, lots of people lay aside righteousness for the Benjamins.

This is all too true.

Rygaku · Nov 13, 2015

artiewhitefox said:
People make it to seem to be slavery in the bible. They that are poor serve the person that is rich. Rolls reverse when the poor person becomes rich. Nothing is stagnant. Jesus in one serves the other.it is not a one way street. The devil makes people to think God is unequal.

nooo... slavery is in the bible and the bible is also a guideline for slavery

AlexDTX · Nov 13, 2015

Ned Netterville said:
NOT!!! All human laws are immoral per se, for they require the use of force and violence--forbidden by Jesus--in order to enFORCE them. If the bottom line of all morality is free will, and I agree, than human government is anathema to free will, for legislatures pass laws restricting many individuals' freedom of choice. A good example: gun control laws, tax laws, business regulations, and on and on infinitum. Furthermore, most of the laws of human legislators are not only immoral but, at least in America, they are illicit. Why? Because the American system of government is based on the concept, which is affirmed by SCOTUS in several of its decisions, that the people are the ultimate sovereign authority and the legislators, executive officers and judges are mere agents carrying out the will of the people and exercising an authority delegated to them by the people's Constitution. A charming scenario that lacks anything of reality.

In the first place, the people cannot delegate an authority to their representatives that they do not have themselves--obviously. Since the people individually do not have authority to control their neighbors' benign behavior nor take their property by force and coercion, obviously their representatives cannot do so either. The concept is a hoax, which makes the people actually slaves rather than real sovereigns, and the law makers and law enforcers are their masters and overseers.

As for concensus of will there is no such thing. Murder and stealing were forbidden by God's law (The Decalogue), and human laws mimicking God's law are unnecessary pleonasms, and totally useless.

We don't disagree. You are reacting to red herrings. There are two laws in life: the laws of creation that God made, which are physical, spiritual and moral; and the agreements of man. God gave man dominion over the Earth and the right to self government. The legal system is based upon this understanding. Criminal law covers those crimes that violate man's rights of free will, whereas Civil law covers those breaches of agreements. Criminal law correlates to the commandments of God, and Civil law tends to be the realm of most government laws. Ignorance by the people allows abuse and the crossover of criminal law consequences to civil law breaches. An example of this is the Traffic Code. Exceeding speed limits is not a crime because it is a civil agreement. Yet we are routinely treated by the government with arrest for not showing up to pay speeding tickets which is a violation of civil law. However, if you exceed the speed limit and cause harm to another person or property, then it is criminal.

I lost interest in the topic of this thread because I saw the conversations going nowhere. Continuing the conversation in this branch of the thread is really a different topic, and probably should be the beginning of another thread.

Maramoo · Nov 13, 2015

It's astounding how many people will argue about this bible. The constant defending of what's contained in it's pages and having to justify the many horrors found within, just like slavery. What I find incredible is that when there is a passage you like, then that's what it means, when you find a passage you don't, then it needs to be interpreted. Slavery is condoned in the bible, absolutely, no question. Why defend it and make excuses, look at it for what it really is, a book put together by very primitive men, then it will make sense, along with all the other ridiculous things. For example:

"Should people cheat God? Yet you have cheated me! "But you ask, 'What do you mean? When did we ever cheat you?' "You have cheated me of the tithes and offerings due to me. You are under a curse, for your whole nation has been cheating me. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do," says the LORD Almighty, "I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won't have enough room to take it in! Try it! Let me prove it to you! Your crops will be abundant, for I will guard them from insects and disease. Your grapes will not shrivel before they are ripe," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:8-11 NLT)

There are so many other passages as I'm sure you are aware of: God is jealous, annoyed, orders murder, can't take down some city because they have 'iron chariots' Really? Is it just me, or perhaps these passages and many, many, many others like them are actually not the words of God, perhaps, just maybe men who had an agenda just put these things in, ask yourself, really, this is supposed to be the creator of this entire universe and he is annoyed that he isn't getting offerings? I'm not saying that there aren't some good messages in the bible, there are, but these same messages are found everywhere, in all faiths! I'm sure the men who put the bible together would be astounded at how far along in history it has come, pleased I should imagine, just look at the wealth of the catholic church, they are still controlling people, how sad!

GBRK · Nov 13, 2015

True Blu said:
Naturally, as Christians we know slavery is wrong. Although it is mentioned in the bible, we still recognize that owning another person and working them as property is horrible.

(I'm saying "we" assumingly)

So why is it discussed in the New Testament? The bible gives guidelines and everything on how to treat slaves.

I've done a bit of research, albeit shallow research, into this, and I gathered that slavery was a voluntary option for those who were unable to support themselves and their families, and it was no different than the hiring/ working process we have today. It was apart of their culture thousands of years ago, and slavery had a slightly different meaning than what we make of it today, or so I vaguely found.
(Yes, some were sold as human property then, this has been an issue since forever, I recognize that.)

I know this is a really bland question, but I hear it often associated with same-sex marriage debates of all things. (No idea how they even remotely relate) I guess the catch is if slavery is condoned in the bible, should we still practice it? And if not, then why should we practice the institution of a godly marriage? (This is just why I was prompted to ask, since slavery is a common subject, I figured I'd add in my reason for this question. PLEASE don't let this become about that other thing, though! I love you all, don't kick a dead, almost dead, horribly suffering horse. Let old Bucky die in peace. Just answer the initial question if you can! I know the second part is a rather delicate piece of dynamite eager to explode.)

So in summation: why is slavery in the bible if it's not okay?

Kutte · Nov 13, 2015

Paul observed in Colossians 3:22:

"You slaves must always obey your earthly masters, not trying to please them when they are watching you but all the time. Obey them willingly because of your love for the Lord and because you want to please him. Work hard and cheerfully at all you do, just as though you were working for the Lord and not merely for your masters."

Really? Would the Lord Jesus approves?

Kutte

SoldierOfTheKing · Nov 13, 2015

Black Dog said:
Nope, sorry. Quoting someone's opinion, someone who lived in the 1800s, someone who apparently has no formal education in archaeology or sociology, does not count as evidence. Opinion is not evidence.

That's what I was trying to tell you back in post #246. Since you've come around to understanding that, I will ask you again: Can you provide evidence that slavery is wrong?

There's little that would agree with Engels on, but I have at least shown one thing, namely that you were wrong to suggest that I was simply making this up.

Black Dog said:
If, as you say, it is a fact that ancient civilizations required slavery to survive, you should have no problem finding numerous modern scholarly texts and papers explaining this. So, can you?

I've already found one. I could cite sources showing how Athens during the classical period was supported economically by the silver mine in Laurion, which was run on slave labor. I could show the indispensable role that slavery played in Rome's public works projects. Once again, I'm still waiting on a reason why I should even bother. You see, if slavery is a morally neutral activity like playing checkers or drinking coffee (and you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary) it doesn't much matter whether slavery was really necessary in ancient times. You insist the all my beliefs must be open to question, and for your sake I am willing to grant that. It seems that your beliefs, as far as you are concerned, require no evidence whatsoever, and to question them is indecent. I understand why most people regard the concept on slavery as repugnant today - it's offensive to today's egalitarian sensibilities. That's a far cry from proving that it's objectively wrong. So you continue to ask of me what you will not do yourself. I don't see how I can have a discussion with you on such one-sided terms.

By the way, there's something rather ironic in demanding modern sources on an ancient subject. Do you even understand how academic history works?

GBRK · Nov 13, 2015

Slavery is a fact of life for all humans. We are all, for most of us, slaves to someone or something but your particular question deals with slavery of one person to another and is in the Bible because the Bible is a multi faceted book and a part of that is documentation of various periods of Israel's existence as God deals and has dealt with His chosen people and those who were against them. That is why slavery is mentioned many places in the Old Testament as a historical documentation and reference as to Histories past. As to the first part and our being slaves to someone or something consider the following:

Romans 6:15-23 (NCV)
15 So what should we do? Should we sin because we are under grace and not under law? No!
16 Surely you know that when you give yourselves like slaves to obey someone, then you are really slaves of that person. The person you obey is your master. You can follow sin, which brings spiritual death, or you can obey God, which makes you right with him.
17 In the past you were slaves to sin—sin controlled you. But thank God, you fully obeyed the things that you were taught.
18 You were made free from sin, and now you are slaves to goodness.
19 I use this example because this is hard for you to understand. In the past you offered the parts of your body to be slaves to sin and evil; you lived only for evil. In the same way now you must give yourselves to be slaves of goodness. Then you will live only for God.
20 In the past you were slaves to sin, and goodness did not control you.
21 You did evil things, and now you are ashamed of them. Those things only bring death.
22 But now you are free from sin and have become slaves of God. This brings you a life that is only for God, and this gives you life forever.
23 When people sin, they earn what sin pays—death. But God gives us a free gift—life forever in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yes slavery is a bad thing for one man to possess another yet we should also understand mankind's relationship with God, our creator, and just to whom we allow ourselves to be possessed by.

RDKirk · Nov 13, 2015

Kutte said:
Paul observed in Colossians 3:22:

"You slaves must always obey your earthly masters, not trying to please them when they are watching you but all the time. Obey them willingly because of your love for the Lord and because you want to please him. Work hard and cheerfully at all you do, just as though you were working for the Lord and not merely for your masters."

Really? Would the Lord Jesus approves?

Kutte

What was he going to tell them? Rise up in rebellion and provide the Roman government to crucify Christians as a new Spartacus rebellion?

Or, for that matter, what should we tell Christians in China or Vietnam? Rise up in rebellion? Or be good citizens beyond legal reproach so that if you suffer, it will only be because you are Christians, not because you are lawbreakers?

Paul of Eugene OR · Nov 13, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
I see plenty of misunderstandings. How dare ANY OF US in the 21st century condemn as "immoral" an activity from an entirely different time and place that we have only minimal clues about?

How dare we not? If we don't condemn the immoral acts of the past, we may slip back into them. Even now, there are are advocates of effectively creating a slave class of humans in the USA by putting them into dread of being deported out of the country and therefore forced into accepting jobs without legal protections, all so we can get workers for less than minimum wage.

FatalHeart · Nov 13, 2015

"We all know slavery is wrong." Really? What gives you that idea? The culture you live in? We are to judge the world by the Bible not the Bible by the world. There are multiple times we are called to be servants of righteous and asked to be slaves to God. Slavery, in this sense, is a gift to us because in some cases a slave can actually be placed in a higher position than a son. Go back into the history of what the word really means. There are no contradictions between the God now and the God before. When He instructed them about how they were to handle their slaves, He was being fair and just, just like now when he says through Peter, "Slaves obey your masters," and, "If you can gain your freedom, do so." The social system that was set in order back in Biblical times had a number of economic benefits built into it. Part of the economics, God decided, was slavery. He did not say, "Don't have slaves." We are not supposed to go beyond what is written. We are not supposed to assume God is evil because He did something we don't agree with, and we are not supposed to assume God is for something He never clearly states His opinions on. If you want to judge God, be my guest, but don't use your culture to interpret the Bible. God will do what He wants because He is righteous and He doesn't need you to agree with Him to be right. If you only serve a God that you want, you will only serve yourselves. This is not a question of, "If God supports slavery, should we follow Him?" This is a question of, "If God tells me to sacrifice my son on an altar, will I obey Him?" The right answer is yes, because God has proven Himself trustworthy always, and any culture that sets itself up as greater than God will be rightfully condemned.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 13, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
1 Corinthians 6:20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
1 Corinthians 7:23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

Yep. (You beat me to the punch, Dave! Thanks for the Bible verses.)

And let's add Galatians 5:1 to the above verses:

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Let's also add Romans 6:19-23:

19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Then, to top it off, let's consider that, according to Harvard scholar Orlando Patterson, the above verses likely played a part in the historical development of the Western notion of political Freedom. I find this possible fact to be ... dare I say, ironic!

If what we've mentioned above is true, then, obviously, God is, and has been, more concerned about the possibility of a person's slavery to sin than He is about a person's political slavery. This may feel like a hard pill to swallow, but it may just be the truth of the matter.

References

Patterson, Orlando. (1991). Freedom: Volume I--Freedom in the making of Western culture. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

PsychoSarah · Nov 13, 2015

Carnegie said:
Straw man. I didn't say biblical incidents of slavery were mistakenly categorized indentured service.

Also it's no mystery that the scriptures, while inspired, were influenced by the culture of the respective writers, and that doesn't mean there can't be a common moral theme. If one believes God exists outside of time, as Christianity posits, and he's the source of that morality, then he can convey that morality to the various authors of scripture in their respective cultures and time periods.

I highly doubt that. After all, there are rules about selling people. You don't sell servants, you hire or fire them, and they can leave as they wish.

lucaspa · Nov 13, 2015

dqhall said:
Jesus came to serve, not to own slaves.

Jesus' testimony is better than the testimony of Moses. That is why slavery is wrong.

You didn't quote any of Jesus' "testimony". Paul is not Jesus. Paul hates slave traders and pimps (what is mistranslated as "homosexuals"). But Paul does not condemn the institution.

I agree slavery is wrong, but you can't uses Jesus as dictating this morality specifically. You will have to fall back on the Golden Rule as a generality.

lucaspa · Nov 13, 2015

2PhiloVoid said:
Yep. (You beat me to the punch, Dave! Thanks for the Bible verses.)

And let's add Galatians 5:1 to the above verses:

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Are you sure you want to use this verse? In context, Paul is talking about slavery to the Mosaic law, not slavery to each other. Go back to 4:24-25:
"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children."

It's not nice to give false witness about scripture.

Let's also add Romans 6:19-23:

19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Again, not slavery as we are talking about it. You bolded the right one: slaves to sin. Not to another human being. This is not a condemnation of the human institution of slavery. You got that in the next section:

Obviously, though, God is more concerned about the possibility of a person's slavery to sin than He is about a person's political slavery. Tough, but true.

Yes, scripture does not condemn political slavery as immoral. We believe it is, but we don't always require the Bible to justify morality. After all, morality is independent of God. God tells us something is moral or immoral because it is; it is not moral or immoral because God says so.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 13, 2015

Hello lucaspa,

lucaspa said:
Are you sure you want to use this verse? In context, Paul is talking about slavery to the Mosaic law, not slavery to each other. Go back to 4:24-25:
"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children."

It's not nice to give false witness about scripture.

Yes, I purposely cited Galatians 5:1 ALONG WITH Romans 6:19-23 to make a point. I am fully aware that the citations I made were OUT of context; I'm not going to deny that. My purpose in my citing these verses was to list some additional biblical texts to those DaveW-Ohev provided earlier, supplying additional implications for us to consider, and not to provide a point by point, contextual exegesis. Taking Galatians 5:1 in context, we realize there can be such a thing as 'theological slavery,' in this case, slavery to the graceless appropriation of human effort under the Law, the meaning of which infers that those who do so are still in their sins. However, even though that is the context, we should notice something this verse does not imply; that it does not say that Christ came to free us from political slavery, however much we might wish it did.

(Also, may I make a suggestion? It is usually a little bit more polite to not just pop in on someone else's comments and insinuate that they have made a "false witness about Scripture," especially if they are a fellow Christian. Maybe giving a judgement wasn't your intent, but the way in which your statement is phrased, it seems to imply that I'm some kind of liar, which I don't appreciate.)

Again, not slavery as we are talking about it. You bolded the right one: slaves to sin. Not to another human being. This is not a condemnation of the human institution of slavery. You got that in the next section:

Yes, scripture does not condemn political slavery as immoral. We believe it is, but we don't always require the Bible to justify morality. After all, morality is independent of God. God tells us something is moral or immoral because it is; it is not moral or immoral because God says so.

lucaspa, do you understand the overall approach and point I was attempting to make in my post? Maybe asking me to clarify things rather than jumping in on me with both 'literalist' guns blazing would be preferable.

And NO...morality is not independent of God. You got that wrong! Morality itself is dependent on God.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Why is Slavery in the Bible?

Active Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Active Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Site Rookie

Regular Member

Christian Spenglerian

Site Rookie

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Finally Old Enough

Wisdom's Associate

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Chaotic Neutral

Legend

Legend

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Similar threads