Slavery

[Nooj]

Why didn't God condemn slavery in the Bible?

 

[arunma]

The answer to your question likely lies in the fact that you are not understanding language evolution, and you are likely inserting your ideas about American enslavement of Africans into the Biblical word "slavery."

 

[Criada]

It's a very difficult question... and the usual answer is to do with the cultural practices of the time. But, I know that doesn't really help a great deal, it still seems that a just God was condoning an unjust institution. I think, as usual, sin is the answer... fallen mankind is naturally prone to create unjust societies, and when God laid down rules in the old testament, they were for people that He knew would be living in those societies.

Slavery was often a voluntary arrangement (as when Jacob worked to 'earn' his wives), and was never, in Jewish law, a permanent condition.

In the New Testament, we learn that in Christ there is neither slave nor freeman.. all Christians are the willing servants of God and one another.

I know that doesn't really answer your question.. it is one that I find hard to understand as well. That is as far as I have got in my thinking.. others can probably bring more clarity.

 

[ebia]

Why didn't God condemn slavery in the Bible?

I would say he did, but in more subtle and powerful ways than one might have expected. The whole theme of Exodus and New Exodus is predicated on the understanding that slavery is a bad thing; so that assumption lies at the core of both Old and New Testaments. And then there is the letter to Philemon that puts a timebomb under the institution, telling Christians that they must treat their slaves as brothers and equals.

 

[Nooj]

And then there is the letter to Philemon that puts a timebomb under the institution, telling Christians that they must treat their slaves as brothers and equals.

I have read Philemon many times and I cannot see this implication. Please point it out to me.

Paul is talking to one Christian and one Christian only, not to an entire community. He tells Philemon to recieve Onesimus without punishing him, but he doesn't say anything about treating his other slaves (Philemon of course having other slaves in a big household) with such care either. Nowhere does he say that slavery is wrong, nowhere does Paul question the institution of slavery, nowhere does he call for Onesimus to be manumitted.

Some pagans, Seneca in particular I'm thinking of, called for slaves to be treated well and even said that there was no difference between slaves and freemen. But no one in the ancient world ever called for its abolition. I tend to think that Paul basically believes the same thing.

Your 'timebomb' scenario failed by the way, if it was Paul's intention. It failed for 2000 years.

Slavery was often a voluntary arrangement (as when Jacob worked to 'earn' his wives), and was never, in Jewish law, a permanent condition.

Criada, that's incorrect. Non-Jews were permanent slaves and could never be freed. They were perpetual slaves and their children were slaves for the rest of their lives as well (Leviticus 25:39-46).

 

[arunma]

I have read Philemon many times and I cannot see this implication. Please point it out to me.

This is the pertinent verse:

For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother--especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Philemon 1:15-16)

​

 

[Nooj]

This is the pertinent verse:

For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother--especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Philemon 1:15-16)

​

We know Philemon's house is big and is used as a church (Phil. 1:2). So he had other slaves. Paul says nothing about them.

And note Phil 1:11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful both to you and me.

Why was Onesimus useless? Because he was not a Christian, he had not been converted then. I wouldn't say Paul didn't care about pagan slaves, but clearly his interest is in the Christian community foremost. This brotherly love, if you are right, extends only to Christians if we are taking the letter on its word. See Colossians 3:11.

 

[ebia]

I have read Philemon many times and I cannot see this implication. Please point it out to me.

If you are looking for a straight command "stop keeing slaves" you aren't going to find it. But that's not how scripture works for the most part. Rather it works more like a succession of case studies. If you take what Paul demands of Philemon - treat Onesimus as a beloved brother in the Lord, then continuing to keep him (or by implication any other person) as property becomes unsustainable. Ultimately treating anybody as less than the image of God becomes unsustainable.

Paul doesn't need to say 'free all your slaves'. If Philemon understands what is demanded of him and why then something far greater than manumitting is demanded ultimately.

And that's a far more effective way of setting the issue than a simple command. A 21st century equivalent issue might be the burning of fossil-fuels. Plenty of Christians around the world recognise what that is doing to our environment, and that is not the good stewardship demanded of God's people. But a simple command to stop doing it would simply be ignored because it's not feasible in our world. Far more effective are stories that challenge the way we live our lives. Slaves in Paul's greek world are remarkably similar - they are part of the powerhouse of that economy. A simple demand to stop would have been about as practically feasible as a simple demand to 21st century Christians to give up cars.

 

[Nooj]

And that's a far more effective way of setting the issue than a simple command. A 21st century equivalent issue might be the burning of fossil-fuels. Plenty of Christians around the world recognise what that is doing to our environment, and that is not the good stewardship demanded of God's people. But a simple command to stop doing it would simply be ignored because it's not feasible in our world. Far more effective are stories that challenge the way we live our lives.

Slaves in Paul's greek world are remarkably similar - they are part of the powerhouse of that economy. A simple demand to stop would have been about as practically feasible as a simple demand to 21st century Christians to give up cars.

And yet Jesus tells people to turn their cheeks and to love their enemies. Just as unrealistic but Jesus still calls for it. You're saying that Paul thinks it not practical to practice true, Christian brotherly love. True Christian love would be to free slaves. But worldly things are more important?

That God would 'honour' an immoral, unjust and degrading institution because he couldn't find a way to abolish it without breaking things, doesn't fly with me.

Moreover, history has shown that God's slow and steady method didn't work. Christians for centuries and centuries were involved in the slave trade, expanded it and even created worse forms of slavery. Literally millions of people lived their lives as slaves under Christians.

If you are looking for a straight command "stop keeing slaves" you aren't going to find it. But that's not how scripture works for the most part. Rather it works more like a succession of case studies. If you take what Paul demands of Philemon - treat Onesimus as a beloved brother in the Lord, then continuing to keep him (or by implication any other person) as property becomes unsustainable. Ultimately treating anybody as less than the image of God becomes unsustainable.

Paul doesn't need to say 'free all your slaves'. If Philemon understands what is demanded of him and why then something far greater than manumitting is demanded ultimately.

You said above that Paul couldn't call for manumission, but now you're saying that he's implying it here. So what is it. Is he saying 'guys, please free slaves' or is he not?

Lets assume for one moment that Paul was thinking of the well being of the Roman economy. Fine. But you'd think that he'd say somewhere that slavery is wrong. Necessary, but wrong.

But he doesn't. Nowhere does he do this. In fact:

1 Timothy 6:1-2 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be basphemed.

Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the grounds that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.

Paul is saying that Christian slaves should strive to be better slaves, because their slavery is helpful to Christian masters.

Or:

Ephesians 6:5-9

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; 6not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, 8knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.
9 And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

This is unconscionable to me.

 

[ebia]

And yet Jesus tells people to turn their cheeks and to love their enemies. Just as unrealistic but Jesus still calls for it.

Yet the number of such statements is very small and blatantly representative. When you try to reduce the bible to sets of commands and statements you completely miss the point of what it is.

You're saying that Paul thinks it not practical to practice true, Christian brotherly love. True Christian love would be to free slaves.

That's not what I said. What I said is that in a world where it is as impractical to give up slaves as it is in our world to give up fossil fuels, and where being a slave is inherently to be nothing more than a piece of property, Paul tells Philemon that Onesimus must be treated as a beloved brother and equal, and explains that in ways that overturn the legitimacy of all such relationships. But one needs to learn to learn from narrative, not look for instructions. Instructions exist within the bible, but within narrative - story is the overriding structure (even in Philemon) not propositional statements and timeless explicity commands.

That God would 'honour' an immoral, unjust and degrading institution because he couldn't find a way to abolish it without breaking things, doesn't fly with me.

That bears no connection to anything I've said.

Moreover, history has shown that God's slow and steady method didn't work. Christians for centuries and centuries were involved in the slave trade, expanded it and even created worse forms of slavery. Literally millions of people lived their lives as slaves under Christians.

And equally many, many Christians have been inspired by texts like Philemon, Genesis 1, etc, to oppose slavery - including Wilberforce. (Some) People, Christians, always will selectively understand whatever the text says to justify their actions. And yet the texts do, slowly, change hearts and minds. Of course it's a slow process - we do, after all, effectively have to start again over and over as we "proclaim the gospel afresh to each generation". As any teacher working with challenging kids knows, changing hearts and minds is always a slow process with small steps and many setbacks. The bible explicitly recognises that - and yet says that God perserves with us anyway.

But you'd think that he'd say somewhere that slavery is wrong. Necessary, but wrong.

The bible takes it as read that slavery is wrong. The second biggest theme in the bible after creation is exodus - the freeing of slaves. If you don't understand that slavery is wrong you can't begin to understand the second biggest theme in both old and new testaments. You can't begin to understand what the gospel is.

You said above that Paul couldn't call for manumission, but now you're saying that he's implying it here. So what is it. Is he saying 'guys, please free slaves' or is he not?

I didn't say he couldn't. I made an analogy about what it would be like if he did. He says what he says - treat Onesimus as your brother and equal, because that is what he is, and if you feel hard done by by what has happened charge that to me! Why try to reduce that rich challenge to all improper relationships to a second rate 'free the slaves'.

With that said, I've said what I have to say. If you want scripture that challenges the attitude to relationships that allows for slavery you'll find it in

 

[AV1611VET]

When you try to reduce the bible to sets of commands and statements you completely miss the point of what it is.

Excellent point ---

 

[Nooj]

The bible takes it as read that slavery is wrong. The second biggest theme in the bible after creation is exodus - the freeing of slaves. If you don't understand that slavery is wrong you can't begin to understand the second biggest theme in both old and new testaments. You can't begin to understand what the gospel is.

I vehemently disagree.

The Exodus is the freeing of Hebrew slaves. God doesn't give a damn about the Egyptian slaves, who are left behind. In fact, he kills the firstborn of the slaves too (Exodus 11:5) even though they have done no wrong. I'm not going to pull any punches here, you are picking and choosing from the Bible. You take the Exodus as evidence that he condemns slavery, but then you do not mention the rest of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy where God sets rules about slavery and even exhorts slavery. Not passively accepts it. Not even condones it. Commands the Israelites to take slaves (Deuteronomy 20:11).

What possible defence do you have then? Even before Israel was a *nation*, even before it had an economy to worry about, God determines that Israel should keep slaves. God planned it so that Israel's future economy would be dependent on slaves.

With that said, I've said what I have to say.

I hope you understand why I can't accept your arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

You take the Exodus as evidence that he condemns slavery, but then you do not mention the rest of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy where God sets rules about slavery and even exhorts slavery. Not passively accepts it. Not even condones it. Commands the Israelites to take slaves (Deuteronomy 20:11).

Nooj, seeing as the alternative to becoming a tributary was death, God was being merciful.

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

 

[[serious]]

The bible is still going to reflect the ideas of the time in which it was written. One can say the same about any writings including those of science. There are occasional forward thinkers who can see further and espouse morality and ideas that will not be accepted until decades or centuries later, but for the most part both religious leaders and scientists are products of their time.

 

[ebia]

The Bible's ambiguity on such a critical, absolutely clear cut moral issue paved the way for generations of Christians to 'misinterpret' the Bible.

I'm sure you're not really so naieve that you think a straight-forward command would prevent misinterpretation. The bible contains a command to have a Jubilee every 50 years, and there is absolutely no evidence that was ever kept or even attempted. People will ignore or twist what they are not prepared to keep whether it's given as a simple command or a challenging narrative. On the whole the bible goes for the latter - and as a teacher that makes sense to me; rules and instructions don't change lives, but narratives do.

 

[Nooj]

I'm sure you're not really so naieve that you think a straight-forward command would prevent misinterpretation. The bible contains a command to have a Jubilee every 50 years, and there is absolutely no evidence that was ever kept or even attempted.

Prevent misinterpretation? Perhaps not. Significantly reduce the chances of misinterpretation? Definitely. You'd have to try very hard to try to misinterpret the commandment 'thou shalt not murder' into 'thou shalt murder'. Same for slavery.

I notice you haven't made any comment on the Biblical quotes I cited. Does God want slavery or not? Why did he order it? Why did he gives rules about slavery before the Israelites entered Canaan?

People will ignore or twist what they are not prepared to keep whether it's given as a simple command or a challenging narrative. On the whole the bible goes for the latter - and as a teacher that makes sense to me; rules and instructions don't change lives, but narratives do.

I'm saying that didn't work. It wasn't until relatively recently (the last 400 years or so) that slavery started being considered wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

It wasn't until relatively recently (the last 400 years or so) that slavery started being considered wrong.

QV please: 23.

 

[Nooj]

What are you saying?

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you saying?

Here in America, we fought a war over slavery.

It was called the Civil War and The War Between the States.

What I did, was I gave Thaumaturgy my "Cliffs Notes" on the Civil War.

Cliffs Notes on Civil War:

• Robert E. Lee = led the pro slavery side.
• Abraham Lincoln = led the anti-slavery side.
• God broke the tie.

 

[Nooj]

Here in America, we fought a war over slavery.

It was called the Civil War and The War Between the States.

What I did, was I gave Thaumaturgy my "Cliffs Notes" on the Civil War.

Cliffs Notes on Civil War:

• Robert E. Lee = led the pro slavery side.
• Abraham Lincoln = led the anti-slavery side.
• God broke the tie.

Why didn't God break the tie in, you know...the 1st century AD?