Posted on 06/27/2015 9:07:31 AM PDT by Salvation
Biblical slavery
Question: A person I know, hostile to Church teaching, dismisses the Bible as a moral source because it approved of slavery. How can this be answered?
M Taylor, via email
Answer: Slavery in biblical times tended to be an alternative to the more modern tendency of incarcerating people for long periods in prisons. People were generally enslaved for three reasons: They had debts they could not pay, they were guilty of certain crimes, or they had been soldiers who had waged war against the Roman Empire.
Slavery was sometimes for the duration of one’s life, but might not be, depending on the seriousness of the cause that led to it. It also was possible for some to be liberated from slavery if their family could purchase their freedom.
This sort of slavery was quite different from the slavery of the colonial period (the 16th to 19th centuries), when the people who were enslaved had not committed crimes, owed no debt and had not waged war or threatened the nations that enslaved them. This more recent practice clearly was far more egregious and deserving of condemnation than the slavery of biblical times.
The fact that Scriptures do not explicitly condemn slavery must be seen in the context of the times in which they were written and how the slavery then was different than our modern understanding of it.
Much reform was needed, even in the ancient system. But Christian teaching, with its emphasis on the dignity of the individual as a child of God, greatly helped ameliorate that system and ensure that the acceptance of slavery would wane and all but disappear.
If you study Exodus, you learn in Ex. 21 that slavery was a fact of life in ancient times. An important point is that it was God who called us to view all people as equals, in that we are all in need of salvation before Him. Paul wrote of this: “There is no Gentile or Jew, circumsised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and is in all.”
In the Hebrew civil law, a slave was not permanent or forced. A person could choose to be a slave due to debt, but this time had an expiration date. A voluntary Hebrew slave was to serve for 6 years, but in the 7th year, he was to be set free. The law required the master to give the slave a portion of his flock, his grain and some wine. Slavery was meant as a way of getting one’s debt’s paid off and to start a new life again. One never just cut the slave loose - the slave was sent off with provisions to help the man avoid indebtedness in the future.
Another aspect of Hebrew Slavery laws was God’s command to respect families of slaves. SLaves had rights under God’s laws (which was very different from slaves in the USA and around the world 300 yrs ago.)
Unbelievably, and probably especially most so for ppl not familiar with the Bible, is that slaves had the option and the right to continue living as a slave. Slaves were given the right to choose their own destiny as they saw fit. God provided that slavery preserved one’s dignity & destiny.
[[Where do you get that idea? Slavery in the roman period was, in the main, very harsh bondage]]
Again- the question wasn’t about ‘world slavery’ at that time, it was about biblical slaves- bondservants- a much different thing- Bondservants were poor people who ALLOWED themselves to be sold to either pay back their debt, OR to be taken care of financially because they were too poor to take care of themselves- when someone ALLOWED themselves to be sold in such a manner, it was for life- and the person purchasing them as a bondservant was allowed to pass along this bondservant to family members who would in turn take acre of them financially until they died-
Please show us where in the bible being a bondservant was so brutal that the bondservants kept rising up in bloody conflicts-
God commanded His people to treat their bondservants humanely- even going so far as to afford them some of the same rights as family members- compare that with how the world treated bondservants and STOLEN slaves- Israel was forbidden to steal people for slavery like the rest of the world was doing- God was so serious about this that He ordered anyone who did steal someone for slavery purposes to be put to death
an before you bring up the taking of servants after war- that was a cultural thing not a biblical thing and God allowed it but He ALSO commanded His people to treat them humanely
There’s a difference between “slavery as practiced by Hebrews/Israelites” and “slavery in the time period covered by the Bible, but the author did not make that distinction and doesn’t seem aware of it, at least in this short piece.
One can make the case that slavery as allowed by the Mosaic law (if that law were followed) was an improvement over contemporaneous practices in many other societies, but that’s about it.
Leviticus 25:44-46
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”
The original question in the original post posited that the Bible approved of slavery. Scripture would appear to agree with that statement.
Slavery was allowed, right?
The majority of slaves in the Roman Empire times were people who were born into slavery and therefore did not meet any of the criteria that he listed.
For most of those their parents had also rarely been anything but citizens of lands the Romans coveted.
there are all kinds of verses, that on the surface, look as though God is saying it is a-ok to beat and abuse bondservants, however, that is not the case at all- the verse that talks about an owner beating a servant, and the servant surviving, and the owner not beign charged seems to indicate it’s ok to beat a servant even so severely that they may or may not survive, however, the context of the verse is talking about a servant beign disciplined, suffering an unintentional blow that causes harm, to the point of life threatening- the one doing the beating not intending for that to happen- shall not be charged with attempted murder- or intent to kill- just like it is in today’s courts- “Smiting’ in biblical/historical times was allowed- it was NOT a biblical thing- it was a cultural issue- But secular people felt they had a right to smite their slaves even to the point of murdering them because they were nothing but disposable property- God however Commanded His people to treat their bondservants with FAR more respect and never to beat with intent to kill like the secular world did
There are a great many verses talking about God commanding His people to be humane to ANYONE under their command, whether worker, maid, servant, or bondservant- and where God commands His people to treat bondservants nearly as equally as they treat hired help
Which version is that?
Leviticus 25:39-43 (KJV)39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
[[One can make the case that slavery as allowed by the Mosaic law (if that law were followed) was an improvement over contemporaneous practices in many other societies, but that’s about it.]]
Um- no that is not all that can be made of it- many people were destitute, and would perish without someone’s else’s help- Beign in such a dire position was a frightful condition to find oneself in- because it meant you had to open yourself up to the horrible possibilities of extreme abuse by the one buying you when you offer yourself for ‘sale’- The case is to be made that servants, bond and free will, were an integral part of societies, that it was a secular thing, and that there was often little restricitons on what people who bought htem could do-
God however steps in and commands His people to treat servants as people, not as worthless disposable property like so many were doing In the secular world- God was so serious about this that He warned that any of His people who refused to do so would be put to death
Those trying ot make the case that God condoned inhumane slavery ignore this aspect of the culture and God’s commands at that time-
[[but the author did not make that distinction and doesn’t seem aware of it, at least in this short piece.]]
The author did seem ot be aware of it because they were asking how to answer someone who infers (Which is typical of Anti-Christians looking to vilify Christianity) that the brutal practices of secular slavery was condoned by the bible- They said the person dismissed the bible as moral source ‘because the bible approved of slavery’- Not sure how the bible can be dismissed as moral source when slavery was allowed in society, and when God commanded His people to treat them humanely- if it was a humane practice acdepted the world over practically, then how is it considered ‘immoral’ by the person dismissing it ? They would have to equate biblical slavery with secular slavery which often tiems was immoral- and if that was the case, then the person was simply mistaken about what biblical bonservanthood was aBOUT-
[[The majority of slaves in the Roman Empire times were people who were born into slavery and therefore did not meet any of the criteria that he listed.]]
Sure they did when the ‘contract’ was “I heareby swear that I and my family shall be bondservants for generations” or something akin to that- Some debts were so large that payment meant generations of servitude- and I’m sure that people overtaken in war had such ‘contracts’ as well
NIV
Yes. In fact the Mosaic law which said that no free Israelite could be forced into slavery without cause was a major improvement over what was practiced then.
But the times were brutal and slavery was regarded as a necessity to keep the country going so it was allowed.
[[The original question in the original post posited that the Bible approved of slavery. Scripture would appear to agree with that statement.]]
No sir, the original implied that the bible was ‘not a source of morality’ (paraphrased) because it ‘approved of slavery’ with the o ne making that claim giving NO reason for why being a bondservant of God’s people was immoral
Most of the Roman slaves or their ancestors were unable to enter into contracts as they were generally "barbarians" or people who were not Roman.
A free Roman could sell himself into slavery but the price for such a slave was so high that the debt would have to be enormous. To enslave a whole Roman family for generations was to enter into the realm of the absurd.
Sorry but the author is wrong.
They are separate clauses to the point. The Bible could still be a source of morality even if it did approve of slavery or the Bible might not be a source of morality even it if it did condemn slavery.
Your arguments are that the Bible does not approve of slavery. Both your own words and Scripture itself say different.
“God however steps in and commands His people to treat servants as people, not as worthless disposable property...”
Again, you’re painting a picture of rosiness that doesn’t conform to Scripture:
Exodus 21: 20-21
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
[[Exodus 21: 20-21
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”]]
I already explained that verse in a previous post natufian- God is NOT condoning beating bondservants until they die, nor is He excusing them if they shall almost die but end up surviving- already been explained=-
Being a bondservant certainly was not a ‘rosie picture’- NOONE likes being so poor that they must sell themselves in order to be taken care of- but it WAS a fact of life, and there were a great many poor people who would have perished had no one stepped in and helped them- in exchange for the help, the bondservants agreed to various ‘contracts’, and while life was still not the best it could be God made sure that His people treated their bondservants humanely- even going so far as to threaten the ones in charge with death if they did not treat them humanely
There is simply NO comparison between how Israel treated their bondservants and how Egypt and other nations treated their slaves-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.