Does The Bible Condemn Slavery?

April 6, 2004 | comtedemaistre

[Dumb_Ox]

The modern west is the only place where slavery has been abolished. In all other places and times it was taken for granted.

The pre-modern West also saw the elimination of slavery. Here's Tina Nunally describing the Christianization of Norway(c. 1000 AD) in her introduction to the second volume of Sigrid Undset's Kristin Lavransdatter trilogy:

As Christians, landowners were also expected to free their slaves, resulting in a new class of tenants and free laborers.

Such a free peasantry had already been created in the countries to the south.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has two good articles on the subject: Slavery and Christianity
Slavery, Ethical Aspect of

[VRWC_minion]

Who do you think made the model T's Fords?

Who do you think wrote Windows Operating systems ?

The concept of slave and employee in essence is merely labels but often the slave was better cared for.

[orionblamblam]

> I am just saying that it is useless to attempt to debate the willfully ignorance who's only biblical knowledge was gleaned from ihatechristians.com.

Well, sure. But what does that have to do with this situation, then?

> That annihilates your point that it was the "heretics" who discovered the earth rotates around the sun.

Copernicus and Galileo were seen as heretics.

> It was a Christian who discovered that.

Aristarchus of Samos was a Christian?

[orionblamblam]

> I interpret this passage to mean that it is wrong to kidnap (steal) people for the purpose of enslaving them.

Sounds right. But if you gain possession of people for *other* reasons...

[Skooz]

Copernicus and Galileo were seen as heretics.

Ludicrous.

Aristarchus of Samos was a Christian?

LOL! So that's what took you so long to respond. You had to Google and search websites to find someone else who knew heliocentric theory. Congrats.

Aristarchus of Samos was a brilliant mathematician who developed a heliocentric theory that was rejected because it was in opposition the accepted Aristotelian knowledge of the day. Ptolemy's geocentric theory was accepted as scientific fact for 15 centuries. So, it was the pagans who rejected the pagan's theory. Not the Christians, as you inferred.

Copernicus developed the heliocentric for modern science, thus refuting 1500 years of a non-Christian's geocentric view.

[Mark in the Old South]

I haven't heard Iceland collapsed before today. I do not know enough Icelandic history to agree or disagree, but their stopped being interesting.

[AnalogReigns]

Other than captured peoples who were enslaved by their conquerors there was also those who, more or less, opted for slavery. If their debts got out of hand they could go to a rich man who would pay off their debts and they would be "enslaved" for a period of 7 years at which time they were to be released. If they didn't want to be released they could opt for a continuation of that slavery.

There is also a passage about not being a cruel master.

Don't neglect to say that the rules for servitude (as it really wasn't chattle/humans-treated-as-property kind of slavery) were different for fellow Israelites, vs. conquered gentiles.

Too generally in ancient times, due to genuine practical issues--the conquered people were faced with two options: slavery or execution.

[orionblamblam]

>> Copernicus and Galileo were seen as heretics.
> Ludicrous.

Yes, it was ludicrous, but that's nonetheless how they were seen. Religius authorities typically do not take well to science-based points of view.

> So that's what took you so long to respond.

What... the fact I have a job? Gosh I'm sure sorry I'm not an unemployed welfare slob who can slavishly devote all kinds of time to dealing with you...

> Ptolemy's geocentric theory was accepted as scientific fact for 15 centuries...

...by the Christian Church.

> Copernicus developed the heliocentric for modern science, thus refuting 1500 years of ...

...Church dogma.

[orionblamblam]

> I haven't heard Iceland collapsed before today.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

Collapse might be too strong a term... but the republic ceased to be one in any real sense, and devolved into a typical European theocracy.

[Smartass]

"Who do you think made the model T's Fords?
Who do you think wrote Windows Operating systems?
The concept of slave and employee in essence is merely
labels but often the slave was better cared for."

That's a hypocritical comparison to my post.
Nobody held a sword to the employees building Fords,
or computer operating systems. Only a fool would think
otherwise.

[TopQuark]

in the 10 Commandments, there is an explicit prohibition against killing.

It's a common misconception since the King James' version that erroneously translated "thou shall not murder" into "thou shall not kill."

[TopQuark]

But does our society's rejection of slavery stem from the classic liberalism on which our nation was founded, or is there a Bibilical basis for it?

I think you can answer that question yourself. Suppose that the rejection of slavery has Bibilical roots. Christianity was in existence for almost two millennia and Judaism even longer --- why did it take to free the slaves until 1860s in America and 1880s in Europe?

Pope after Pope, thinker after thinker appered on this earth for almost two thousand years. Many struggled with the essence of religion, the essence of G-d, and harldly any had any problem whatever with the instituion of slavery.

[mcg1969]

None of the passages you mention forbids slavery.

The 1 Timothy passage forbids slave trading. Yes it's an important distinction---slave trading often involves related kidnapping and violence. This passage is silent concerning a slave who voluntarily became one to repay a deb.

The 1 Corinthians passage simply acknowledges that being a free man is preferable to being a slave. But in fact, it clearly states that if you can't gain your freedom, you should "not let it trouble you".

Finally, the Philemon passage simply states the superiority of the Christian brotherhood relationship over the slave/master relationship.

These passages are even less relevant, then, than the various passages in the New Testament which command slaves to obey their masters and masters to treat their slaves with respect.

Indeed, the one specific prohibition of slavery in the Old Testament is that an Israelite was not to enslave another Israelite. Thus your later point, about not enslaving others because anyone can be a member of the new Israel, is a good one.

[dmanLA]

First off, I want to correct one thing. The Bible prohibits murder not killing. Many people have misinterpreted that commandment due to a bad translation. I think all can see what a big difference that makes.

Secondly, to address your question, there is no direct prohibition of slavery in the Bible. HOWEVER, the treatment of slaves is specifically addressed.

Question for you. Are we not 'slaves' to the government? How many months do we work just to pay our taxes? So, has slavery really been abolished?

Lastly, aren't Christians SERVANTS of God/Jesus? I am.

[Zack Nguyen]

If someone becomes a slave voluntarily, then it could be argued that it isn't slavery as most would define it.

In any case, I think it's abundantly clear that slavery as practiced by the Western world through the 19th century was an abomination to God. In addition to the fact that you had forcible kidnapping from Africa (punishable by death in the OT), breaking up of families by separating parents from children (clearly a sin in the eyes of God), you had Christians enslaving other Christians. I really run out of pejoratives to say how bad this was.

In the New Covenant, anyone can be a believer, and we never know when the grace of God will come upon the worst unbeliever, so slavery is always a sin no matter where it is practiced. So I think the point is really moot today.

But we also need to remember that the fundamental purpose of the NT was to show mankind salvation in Christ, and Christian living. Changing society comes after that, and is a natural outgrowth of the former.

[VRWC_minion]

Nobody held a sword to the employees building Fords, or computer operating systems. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Read the Jungle someday by Upton Sinclair. Slavery is as much an issue today as it was when we called them slaves. Bondage is bondage whether the force is a gun or the force is food.

[Smartass]

I don't have to read a book to understand slavery,
or poverty! Anybody can learn, however, nobody can
teach me on those subjects. I suggest you go back, and analyze my original post.

[mcg1969]

If someone becomes a slave voluntarily, then it could be argued that it isn't slavery as most would define it.

But "as most would define it" is precisely part of the debate. Remember, part of the problem here is defending Scripture's acceptance of, if not the outright condoning, of slavery. And part of the debate must necessarily be that slavery as Scripture defines it is different than how most would define it today.

Under the Scriptural definition of slavery, voluntary slavery is explicitly mentioned in Exodus 21:2-6. This passage commands Hebrew slaves to be set free in the Sabbath year. But such a slave could volunteer to remain with his master; if he did so, his ear was pierced to indicate this commitment. Many translations use the term "servant" in this passage, but it is clear the person in question is in fact a slave, for two reasons: first, he is purchased, not employed; and second, if he volunteers to stay, he must stay for life.

So again, when someone wishes to argue that Scripture condones slavery, I think that it is important to distinguish between our understanding of slavery, motivated by our country's history, and Scripture's understanding of it.

We agree 100% on the particulars of the Western slave trade, and as I said I appreciate your approach justifying a broad condemnation of slavery under the New Covenant.

[Zack Nguyen]

Thanks, God bless.