Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[InterestedAtheist]

There was absolutely no race based slavery in the Bible other than the slavery the Israelites experienced in Egypt. People were enslaved because of crimes they committed or sold themselves into slavery to get out of poverty. In war, enslaving the enemy was considered a mercy rather than killing them. Many slaves had very prominent positions like Joseph.

Just a question - did that actually happen?
The whole story of the Israelites being slaves in Egypt - did it actually take place?

 

[cvanwey]

Golden Rule.

This response is in stark contrast to my points. If applying your stated 'golden rule', how would the non-Hebrew feel about being owned, treated as property, and beaten, for life? I only mention it, since it is [you] whom brought up such a statement.

 

[cvanwey]

Or slavery came as a curse of sin,

If this is the case, then God would instruct humans NOT to do it; as He does with murder, theft, trespassing, etc, which are (also) considered 'sin'.

Is there any race of man that has not practiced slavery (this includes slavery outside of what we read in Scripture)?

This is not relevant. The same goes for, again; murder, theft, trespassing, etc. All in which God explicitly tells humans not to do.

Again, if God never mentioned slavery, or simply applied one simple verse stating 'not to own another human as property', then we would not be having such a conversation.

 

[cvanwey]

So I have to conclude the reason to start this thread is purely for the purpose of promoting your own view. This is based on the fact your premise will not allow for any other conclusion, it is not subject to revision, case closed, end of learning, end of story.

Actually, you could shut me up very easy. Real easy. Demonstrate that what I stated above is NOT correct? That non-Hebrew slaves cannot be kept for life, be beaten just short of death for life, treated as property for life, and inherited for life. Demonstrate as such, and I will recant my prior conclusion. But guess what? I have spoken to many apologists about this very topic in the past. I have also read all such Biblical verses, in their entirety, for myself. So again, I stand firm, that if you are not a Hebrew, God permits lifetime ownership, and the beating of you, if one should so desire to take such a slave as so. All-the-while, not really clearly dictating what does and does not constitute as a 'slave'.

Everything you stated there-after is not relevant.

 

[cvanwey]

Mathew 7:24, which if you think on what it says again, then you realize "in everything" isn't a small modifier (the wording Christ chose).

In effect it leads after conversion of the slave owner to Christian faith, next by the inspired command from above, to Philemon (1 page, about 1-2 minutes to read) as the in-time outcome.

Bible Gateway passage: Philemon - New International Version

Notice how this outcome in Philemon is better than the United States now.

The slave became not only free, but the full social equal, no less, to his former master. (And in time a Bishop)

Are we today up to that level nationally in the U.S.? Well, it's mixed. Partial. Less perfect than the Philemon level.

We don't fulfill the Christian ideal in the U.S. of true and full social equality, else police wouldn't execute so many black people on the street under color of law, school districts in states wouldn't be some rich, some so underfunded, etc.

If you read the Bible you can see progressions, which make sense, because if nations progress, they do it gradually.

If not gradual then why so many laws in lieu of Mathew 7:24? Consider for yourself what is needed without Mathew 7:24:
Maryland Rape and Sexual Assault Laws - FindLaw

Did you look? That's "progression" over time of law, just like the Old Testament: accumulating baby steps, more and more micro regulation.

This is why we need conversion to bring about heaven. Only true faith actually makes Mathew 7:24 happen when it's less an advantage to do....

I'm sorry, but this entire response is nonsense.

God has no problem telling humans not to murder, not to steal, not to trespass, not to lie, etc.... Again, if God simply told humans not to ever own other humans as property, or never mentioned 'slavery' as such at all, we would not be having this discussion.... Yes, people might still take slaves, just like people, whom are believers in the Bible, still choose to kill, steal, lie, etc, in spite of Biblical instruction not to do so...

However, I find your response rather comical, in the sense that you are stating God wanted humans to 'progress'. If this were true, He would not have laid down the law, from the jump, about many other topics

Why 'slavery' specifically? I'll tell you one reason why... Because I reckon such slavery passages were ultimately written by men whom asserted 'cosmic justification' for their actions of owning other humans as property. "God allows it, so I'm justified.'

 

[cvanwey]

There was absolutely no race based slavery in the Bible other than the slavery the Israelites experienced in Egypt. People were enslaved because of crimes they committed or sold themselves into slavery to get out of poverty. In war, enslaving the enemy was considered a mercy rather than killing them. Many slaves had very prominent positions like Joseph.

Um, it's almost as if you assume I have not read the very same verses you have. It seems quite clear the topic of 'slavery' is not very well defined. Enough so, that if any government decided to again make slavery legal, one would be very hard pressed to find distinctive verses to disallow as such.

 

[cvanwey]

Just a question - did that actually happen?
The whole story of the Israelites being slaves in Egypt - did it actually take place?

I think we all know the answer to that question Which is yet (another) reason skeptics, doubters, non-believers, etc, do not take such a book that seriously anymore anyhow

 

[cvanwey]

20 Each one should remain in the situation he was in when he was called. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let it concern you, but if you can gain your freedom, take the opportunity. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman. Conversely, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. -- 1 Corinthians 7

These passages have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. We are speaking about passages which instruct how non-Hebrews may be taken as slaves, for life, and be beaten for life, and be considered the property of their slave owners, for life.

But nice try in attempting to 'hornswaggle' metaphorical passages, using the word 'slave' in a differing light

 

[cvanwey]

Most slavery in the bible is what we call today indentured servitude. In that regard, I have a number of ancestors who were slaves.

Yes, the Bible even mentions the term 'bond servant'. However, it also mentions the word 'slave' in general. Your wishful conclusion, that the Bible only speaks about a 'different type of slavery', so-to-speak, is merely wishful thinking. The Bible expresses passages, where one would be very hard pressed to tell any future dictator -(one whom wanted to again legalize slavery), that they cannot again legalize any form of slavery by pointing out a distinct passage from the Bible. Why is that? Because the Bible does not clearly define what does and does not constitute as 'acceptable slavery practices.'

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Just a question - did that actually happen?
The whole story of the Israelites being slaves in Egypt - did it actually take place?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Um, it's almost as if you assume I have not read the very same verses you have. It seems quite clear the topic of 'slavery' is not very well defined. Enough so, that if any government decided to again make slavery legal, one would be very hard pressed to find distinctive verses to disallow as such.

If it is not clearly defined, perhaps the slavery in the Bible is not at all what you expect. Perhaps it just another way of saying you own someone money?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If this is the case, then God would instruct humans NOT to do it; as He does with murder, theft, trespassing, etc, which are (also) considered 'sin'.

This is not relevant. The same goes for, again; murder, theft, trespassing, etc. All in which God explicitly tells humans not to do.

Oh but it is relevant, because there are so many different forms of slavery as history shows. This wikipedia article briefly provides an historical overview of slavery, different forms, different countries, different periods of time, it's a rather complex and lengthy topic tbh. In order to fully understand slavery in ancient Biblical times we would almost have to go back in time and be a part of a Jewish community. I readily admit to not being a Jewish cultural background scholar, but I do know enough to know that some things cannot be properly understood without background information, context which is not present in the Biblical text. Speaking of, this ties into another topic you've mentioned and allude to....

...the inspiration of Scripture. The only portion of Scripture God directly inscribed are the Ten Commandments which Moses destroyed in anger over the Hebrews eagerness to form a golden calf and worship the idol. Further the illumination and inspiration of Scripture did not occur in a mechanical fashion that the mind of the writer was controlled such that things like individual personality and Hebrew culture had no role or influence on the topics or priority of them. Quite the contrary really, God met His people where they were, addressing to them the issues of their day through the Prophets.

One other point I would like to make, and this is important, where would a Hebrew go to find a servant/slave? Israel, and or perhaps a surrounding foreign land? For where the Scriptures speak on the topic, which region does it apply? What was slavery like among the other surrounding nations? From what I gather, not so benevolent in Egypt, rather cruel.

Again, if God never mentioned slavery, or simply applied one simple verse stating 'not to own another human as property', then we would not be having such a conversation.

To briefly quote a small portion from an article by Sam Storms:

"We should acknowledge right from the start that the terminology of “slave” and “master” is highly offensive. And the reason is that our concept of “slavery” today is quite different from what existed, for example, in the time of Paul when he wrote Colossians 3:22-4:1. So let’s proceed carefully as we try to understand what the Bible actually says about this controversial topic. Needless to say, this is far from an exhaustive treatment. But I hope these ten observations will help.

(1) Immediately upon hearing the word “slaves” we run into a problem. People today can’t think of that word without associating it with the racial slavery that was so prevalent in the early years of America until the Civil War. The enslavement of black people in this country is such a reprehensible and nauseating chapter in our history that steps have been taken by English translators of the Bible to remove it entirely. That is why you see in the ESV the word “bondservants.” Few people will flinch when they hear that term, but “slaves” is another matter." 10 Things You Should Know about Slavery in the Bible
​

Great little article which goes on to make some important distinctions, usually of more importance to thinking people.

 

[HTacianas]

Yes, the Bible even mentions the term 'bond servant'. However, it also mentions the word 'slave' in general. Your wishful conclusion, that the Bible only speaks about a 'different type of slavery', so-to-speak, is merely wishful thinking. The Bible expresses passages, where one would be very hard pressed to tell any future dictator -(one whom wanted to again legalize slavery), that they cannot again legalize any form of slavery by pointing out a distinct passage from the Bible. Why is that? Because the Bible does not clearly define what does and does not constitute as 'acceptable slavery practices.'

"that the Bible only speaks about"

"Most slavery in the bible"

 

[cvanwey]

If it is not clearly defined, perhaps the slavery in the Bible is not at all what you expect. Perhaps it just another way of saying you own someone money?

Let me elaborate. The fact it does not clearly define the term, means anyone can read the Bible, and assume that any form of 'slavery' they choose to invoke is warranted (i.e.) Trans Atl, indentured servants, etc.... Couple this with the fact we see passages which do specify some allowable engagements, such as beating, owning as property, and allowing inheritance, all for life, etc....

So logic might tell us, if you are ALLOWED to do as so to such individuals, the real question remains... How much money must one owe to deserve such 'God given' punishment?

 

[cvanwey]

Oh but it is relevant, because there are so many different forms of slavery as history shows. This wikipedia article briefly provides an historical overview of slavery, different forms, different countries, different periods of time, it's a rather complex and lengthy topic tbh. In order to fully understand slavery in ancient Biblical times we would almost have to go back in time and be a part of a Jewish community. I readily admit to not being a Jewish cultural background scholar, but I do know enough to know that some things cannot be properly understood without background information, context which is not present in the Biblical text. Speaking of, this ties into another topic you've mentioned and allude to....

If the Bible verses, regarding 'slavery', were written about very specific types of slavery, then it should distinguish as such. It would have also been a good idea to state, with some sort of disclaimer, that such topics are temporary. But it doesn't. And later, in the NT, Jesus further reinforces the topic of slavery. We are then 'left hanging.' No further updates to follow there-after...

Moving forward, I guess it is somehow now up to the apologists of the Bible to 'reinterpret', 're-brand', and 're-define' what 'slavery' actually meant, and how it is no longer really applicable? How about all the people whom read such passages and disagree? Maybe they 'just really don't know what they are reading.'?

To briefly quote a small portion from an article by Sam Storms:

"We should acknowledge right from the start that the terminology of “slave” and “master” is highly offensive. And the reason is that our concept of “slavery” today is quite different from what existed, for example, in the time of Paul when he wrote Colossians 3:22-4:1. So let’s proceed carefully as we try to understand what the Bible actually says about this controversial topic. Needless to say, this is far from an exhaustive treatment. But I hope these ten observations will help.

(1) Immediately upon hearing the word “slaves” we run into a problem. People today can’t think of that word without associating it with the racial slavery that was so prevalent in the early years of America until the Civil War. The enslavement of black people in this country is such a reprehensible and nauseating chapter in our history that steps have been taken by English translators of the Bible to remove it entirely. That is why you see in the ESV the word “bondservants.” Few people will flinch when they hear that term, but “slaves” is another matter." 10 Things You Should Know about Slavery in the Bible
​

Great little article which goes on to make some important distinctions, usually of more importance to thinking people.

The Bible gives some explicit instructions, regarding 'slaves' whom are not Hebrew. Which are:

- beaten for life
- property for life
- inherited for life

So you can change the word 'slave' to now be 'whatever-term-floats-your-boat'. However, you must then ALSO change the terms of the instructions allowed for such non-Hebrew slaves, oops, I mean 'bond servant'. I'll start...

Instead of 'beaten for life', let's instead use 'reprimanded with approved authority for a long time.'

Sound good?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If the Bible verses, regarding 'slavery', were written about very specific types of slavery, then it should distinguish as such.

Oh but there are verses which speak to types and if we take in the context, not just the surrounding context, but even limiting the context to one writer, say Moses, then we should be able to discern guiding principals to the particulars. For example,

Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."​

The Hebrews who took the Great Commandment in Deut 6:4 to heart, would on principal take the other great commandment to heart. In fact, Jesus, who is the God-man, said that all the law and prophets hang on these two commandments. Obviously then, obedience in loving God rules out specific types of slavery which cannot be reconciled with either of the great commandments.

It would have also been a good idea to state, with some sort of disclaimer, that such topics are temporary. But it doesn't. And later, in the NT, Jesus further reinforces the topic of slavery. We are then 'left hanging.' No further updates to follow there-after...

Servants obey your masters is reinforcement? He did speak to a particular audience with a particular notion of servant-hood in mind. That we can easily rip Scripture out of context is not an issue with God or the writers of Scripture, it is an issue with us. How is slavery temporary when it has been an issue from the earliest civilizations up to modern times? If you read the wikipedia article I linked, or watch a documentary on the southern boarder in the US, you'll notice that human trafficking is recognized as a form of slavery today.

Moving forward, I guess it is somehow now up to the apologists of the Bible to 'reinterpret', 're-brand', and 're-define' what 'slavery' actually meant, and how it is no longer really applicable? How about all the people whom read such passages and disagree? Maybe they 'just really don't know what they are reading.'?

No, it's up to skeptics and non-believers to use convenient definitions of slavery which suite the skeptical non-believing agenda as argumentation and supposed justification for their anger with God. Btw, this notion that I suggested interpretation of Scripture is subjective, is bunk.

The Bible gives some explicit instructions, regarding 'slaves' whom are not Hebrew. Which are:

- beaten for life
- property for life
- inherited for life

Even when arguing against the Bible, it's usually helpful and courteous to provide Scripture references. I will await for verses using those specific words and meanings.

So you can change the word 'slave' to now be 'whatever-term-floats-your-boat'.

No, words do so often have more than one meaning, and their meanings can even vary even if ever so slightly from one dictionary to another. Often when searching for the meaning of a word important to me, I will consult multiple resources, for the mentioned reasons and others. Ancient words, especially transliterated from other languages, can be even more difficult, but not impossible to pin down.

However, you must then ALSO change the terms of the instructions allowed for such non-Hebrew slaves, oops, I mean 'bond servant'. I'll start...

Instead of 'beaten for life', let's instead use 'reprimanded with approved authority for life.'

Sound good?

Unfortunately evil people have abused others who willingly and literally "signed their life away". For all of the morality involved in the topic though, seeing the forest before the trees, it seems we have to have some sort of unchanging universal standard of morality by which to measure our morality as individuals, and I am curious, how the non-believing skeptic can account for an objective standard of morality, because subjective standards change and certainly cannot speak universally. Sorry, I cannot help but see the relation due to the nature of the topic and the nearly universal position on slavery across the globe today, at least as it pertains to specific forms of slavery in the legal sense.

 

[gaara4158]

I'm a slave to Christ.

What about to a human? Is that ok as long as it’s not race-based?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, the Bible regulates slavery. It also regulates Divorce, Adultery, Taxation, Human government, etc.

It does not mean it condones any of this thereby, or think it moral, merely that it is there and should therefore be considered and limited in some fashion. In fact, the Do unto others is explicitly applied to Onesimus, a runaway slave, that he should be treated as a brother. Just as Mosaic Law applied systems for Divorce, systems were in place for Slavery - a universal human institution at the time. In Eden though, where was the slavery? Where are the slaves in the Parousia? He who is first shall be last, and all that.

With Christianity, Slavery is a strength to the Christian Apologist - no other society ever abolished Slavery but Christian ones, or under direct threat of Christian Powers' gunboats or attempts to Westernise. So if we acknowledge Slavery an Evil, than only Christianity ever stood against it. Other societies usually praised the taking of slaves, the dominating of your fellow man - only in Christianity was this in fact considered a flaw, a lack of mercy, as such.

If you look at the history of the Abolition movement, it was spearheaded by Britain ending the Slave Trade - and all of this was done via Churches and Churchmen. Even in the American expansion, Churchmen were the chief opponents of slavery, like Las Casas. Wherever the Christian religion went in Europe, Slavery dissappeared: First in the old Roman Empire, then Germanic lands and finally Slavic lands, into some alternate relationship like Serfdom usually, before free peasantry arose. They started slaving again during the Age of Discovery, but from the start many churchmen opposed this - though the Catholic Church eventually acquiesced to the inevitable. This evil was then finally crushed by the highly religious 19th century Abolition movements onward, even stopping Islamic slavery. The secularists of the Enlightenment never cared, just read Voltaire or Hume and their low opinion of black Africans. In fact, Voltaire invested in African slavery. We also see the sudden reappearance of slave labour amongst the secular and atheistic regimes of the 20th century, like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, with rapidity.

The Bible certainly regulates slavery, as it regulates other instances of human greed and sin. It nowhere says it is a good thing, nor do Church Fathers ever say so - usually attributing it to the Fall - and the proof of the pudding is in the Eating: Christianity is the most wholesale anti-slavery movement in human history, resulting in the liberation of millions from bondage and responsible for the fact that people, even the secular, today acknowledge that owning another human is a bad thing.

 

[A_Thinker]

As long as you were/are a Hebrew.

Otherwise, it would appear 'God" allows/sanctions/condones a lifetime of slavery, with virtually no restrictions in 'punishment', just short of death.

As a disclaimer, this topic would never rear it's 'ugly' head, if there existed even one verse in the Bible stating something to the affect of, 'don't own humans as property.' Or, never mentioned slavery at all. But instead, it provides the contrary.

As another disclaimer, I'm not addressing the 'moral' implications. I'm instead mentioning this topic because when 'slavery' is thrown out there, from a non-believer, the believer quite often uses the word 'regulate'. Which implies, at least to me, that the believer too does not agree with 'slavery' and is using 'apologetics tactics'.

I know this topic is anything but new, but I have to bring it up, because it would more likely appear that such verses were written by humans, whom simply passed them off as God pronouncements. Which is yet another reason non-believers can so easily read from this book and not take it too seriously.

Thoughts?

By the time of Jesus, there is no slavery mentioned among the Hebrew/Jewish people, ... though it does exist among the various people groups that surround them.

In fact, one can make an argument that Christianity, itself, has been one of the major catalysts to abolishing slavery in many parts of the world.

You may say that the Bible says nothing against slavery, but it does say that "we should LOVE one another in the same ways that we love ourselves". This, the second great commandment, effectively makes slavery impossible among the people who follow it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You may say that the Bible says nothing against slavery, but it does say that "we should LOVE one another in the same ways that we love ourselves". This, the second great commandment, effectively makes slavery impossible among the people who follow it.

Unfortunately, it's rather more complicated than that.
Yes, the Bible does say "Love your neighbour as you love yourself."
But it also has a huge amount of violence, hatred and killing in it, much of it inspired by God, directly ordered by God, and/or committed by God Himself.
So, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to decide that "love they neighbour as thyself" is not one of those parts of the Bible we need to take seriously. Slavery, on the other hand, was explicitly supported by the Bible. Therefore, it must be right. You can't blame slaveholders throughout history for thinking that the Bible supported their views, because it does.