Posted on 06/07/2020 9:06:14 AM PDT by daniel1212
...Slavery has not been a monolithic institution, but has had many forms and requirements which have varied throughout history.[1]
Historically, the most prevalent type of service which slavery provided was that of domestic service, working to meet needs of the family, while a second and less predominate basic form was that of production, working to provide saleable goods in such enterprises as plantations or mines.
Slaves could be acquired through war, or through trading, or through the sale of oneself, mainly to work off debt, or in order for a thief to make restitution.
Most if not all major ancient societies practiced slavery.
Contents |
International documents define modern slavery as conditions where others effectively own human beings and their work, with the victims unable to leave and compelled to live abused, exploited and humiliating lives. The US State Department has claimed that in 2003 between 700,000 and 4 million men, women and children were held unwillingly in conditions amounting to slavery, and that they were also bought, sold and transported as slaves. Intimidation, threats and actual violence were used to force slaves to do sexual acts or work in other ways while the traffickers got the money for what the victims were doing.
By far the largest number of victims are women and children. According to estimates there are nine million child slaves today. Modern slaves are likely to be sold and forced into the sex trade (this can mean prostitution or sex tourism which is a form of prostitution and other situations where they are forced to engage in sex to provide for their masters) or forced labour in agriculture, construction sites and sweatshops. Kidnapped children are sometimes forced to fight for various government or rebel militaries, and at other times they are forced to work as street beggars or domestic servants.[4][5]
The Hebrew scriptures sanctioned the use of its regulated forms of non-racial slavery in a world in which slavery existed as a long-established socio-economic institution, effectively as a form of employment. This allowance, and the absence of explicit condemnation of all forms of slavery, was used later on to justify racial slavery by its defenders.[6] As a form of required servitude it has been likened to modern soldiers who are required to serve a fixed term before being allowed their "freedom", though for some this could be a perpetual condition. Further amelioration of the condition of slaves is seen in the New Testament, and abolitionists at best saw slavery as a temporary cultural accommodation, and invoked certain texts as well as the Christian ethos of love for others in arguing such worked toward the manumission of slaves.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
In addition to providing labor and employment, slavery in the nation of Israel served as a means of keeping enemies in subjection, and of working off short term debt (long term debt was avoided by the seventh-year release). The Old Testament requirements regarding slavery were both similar to other cultures as well as being counter-cultural in making it more humane.[14] The law of Moses overall disallowed the permanent enslavement of Israelites, but permitted the permanent enslavement of immigrants and the occupants of other countries, except in the case of certain violations of laws by owners, as regarding treatment of slaves.
While the permanency of purchased slaves was determined by nationalism, race did not mandate slavery (foreigners could actually own Hebrew slaves), unlike when the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt.[15] In addition, certain injuries by the owner afforded any slave freedom, as did escape, for returning such was forbidden. These aspects would seem to promote good treatment of slaves. No provision was made for selling or trading slaves after they were purchased.
The first mention in the Bible of slaves ('servants' in some translations) being used is that of Abraham's army, by which home-born servants he rescued his nephew Lot. (Genesis 14:14-16)
Later, in Israel's preparation for conquering the Canaanite nations, Israel was instructed to take as tributary states neighboring enemy cities which surrendered to them, but which were not part of the Canaanite nations. If they chose war, the women and children were saved alive and became Israel's. (Deuteronomy 20:10-16) These women could be taken to be wives (after a month of mourning), but were to go free if later divorced. (Leviticus 25:44-46; Deuteronomy 21:10-14) Israel did not go to war with distant nations, and though slaves were often obtained through warfare in the Ancient Near East, apparently such means were not a significant source for Israel,[16] especially after the initial conquering of the land. Instead, the main source of slavery was by means of purchase.
While Hebrews were to relieve both their fellow Israelites as well as "a stranger or a sojourner" who fell into poverty, debtors could sell themselves into slavery. (Leviticus 25:35,39; Deuteronomy 15:7-8; 2Kings 4:1) Thieves could also be sold into slavery to pay restitution if they could not otherwise do so. (Exodus 22:3)
It was specified that Israelite slaves were not to be made to serve with rigor, “but as an hired servant, and as a sojourner”, (Leviticus 25:39-43,53; 1 Kings 9:22) and were to given freedom after six years of servitude. (Exodus 21:2-6; Jeremiah 34:14) If they choose to be free, they were to be released with abundant provisions, designed to help economically establish him. (Deuteronomy 15:12-15) However, an allowance was also made for Hebrews who freely chose to remain in servitude. (Exodus 21:5-6; Deuteronomy 15:16-18)
Hebrew servants were also required to be given release in the 50 year Jubilee, when sold or mortgaged land, which had been originally divided by lot to Israelites, (Numbers 26:52-56) also returned back to the original owner. (Leviticus 25:8-13)
Foreigners who dwelt among the Hebrews were not to be oppressed, but loved as one of their own (Leviticus 19:33-34), and could buy and sell Hebrew slaves. However, these slaves could be redeemed out of slavery by close kin, for a price corresponding to the year of the jubilee. If not redeemed then they were to go free at that time. (Leviticus 25:47-55)
An exception to the seventh year release of Hebrew slaves was that of a woman who was sold by her father to be a wife, or concubine (a secondary type of wife[17]), to which special requirements applied. If she was betrothed (contracted to be married) to the owner, he was required to let her be redeemed to freedom if he broke the betrothal. If married to his son, the neglect of equal care for her in food, or in clothing or in sexual relations mandated her release. (Exodus 21:7-11) In Deuteronomy 15:12 both male and female Hebrew servants were to be be given release in the seventh year, evidently except in the case of the betrothal arrangement.
In addition, if a male Israelite slave was given a wife by his owner, then upon his release the wife and any children which they had conceived together would remain the property of the owner. (Exodus 21:1-4) The nationality of the wife is not mentioned, and Baptist theologian John Gill (1697–1771), referencing Rabbi David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra (Jarchi[18]), suggested that this referred to the marriage of a Canaanite concubine, as normally Hebrew slaves went free in the seventh year,[19] with theologian Adam Clarke (1760 or 1762–1832) stating that "It was a law among the Hebrews, that if a Hebrew had children by a Canannitish woman, those children must be considered as Canaanitish only, and might be sold and bought, and serve for ever. The law here refers to such a case only."[20]
Israel could also purchase foreign slaves from foreign nations or from strangers living among them, and which servants became the property of the owner's posterity as well. (Leviticus 25:44-46) In contrast to foreigners and hired servants, these purchased slaves were circumcised and became part of the owner's household, and received benefits under the Abrahamic covenant, (Genesis 17:13-19) and as such they took part in such observances as the Passover feast (Exodus 12:44-45; Deuteronomy 2:10-12; 29:10-13; Leviticus 22:10-12)
Although slaves were considered the property of their owners, this was not an absolute right to do with them as the owner wished. In more modern forms of slavery, slaves did not have the right to their own property. However, in biblical slavery, they did. This even extended to the right to own their own slaves. Ziba, for example, was a slave of Saul who himself owned 15 slaves (2 Samuel 19:17 KJV).
The ability to earn and retain property was one way that a slave could gain his freedom, by buying it, or paying off the debt that caused him to sell himself as a slave in the first place.
Besides the seventh year release regulations, the main distinction between Hebrew slaves and non-nationals was that the Hebrew was to be treated as a hired servant. (Leviticus 25:43,53)
All slaves, Hebrew and foreign, were to rest on the seventh day and other Sabbaths, and from planting and sowing during the seventh year and the fiftieth year Jubilee. (Leviticus 25:1-13)
Capital punishment was evidently required for killing any servant (Exodus 21:18-21), with the master being slain with the sword, as the Targum and Jarchi understand it.[21] (Exodus 21:20,23; cf. Leviticus 24:21-22) Philo opined, "And if any one kills a slave who has done no wrong, because he is afraid that he may inform of some base and evil deeds of his own, or for any similar reason, in such a case let him pay the penalty of murder, as he would have done if he had slain a citizen."[22] If fatality was not evidenced for a day or two, then no punishment was prescribed regarding a foreign servant. For freemen a monetary compensation was mandated in the latter case. (Exodus 21:18-21)
Freedom was mandated for any slave which suffered a loss of eyesight or a tooth due to his master striking him. (Exodus 21:26-27)
Stealing a man and selling him into slavery was an additional capital crime, (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7)
Escaped slaves were not to be returned to their master. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
Leviticus 19:20 teaches that "whosoever" engaged in adultery with a female slave - a distinction between Hebrew or foreign not being made here, nor is rape inferred - who was betrothed to a husband and not given freedom, was to be scourged[23] rather than put to death as per Dt. 22:23-24, in deference to the women's condition as a bondmaid. [24]. The man had to also bring a trespass-offering for the priest to make atonement for the forgiveness of his sins, (Lv. 19:21,22) which was not only having sinned with the woman, but because in so doing he also sinned again the man to whom she was betrothed, and the man under whose ownership and care the bondmaid was.
Under the New Testament, the primitive church, as an organic community had no slavery (Acts 2:41-47), but the church initially grew within Greece and Rome, both slave states. In ameliorating the cultural system of slavery, Christian slaves were admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men", (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25 1 Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18) with the like attitude being required of masters toward their servants, as they also had a Master in Heaven. Masters were to act without threatening, (Ephesians 6:9) rendering just and equal recompense to their servants, (Colossians 4:1) with freedom being the ideal for slaves if it could be lawfully obtained. (1 Corinthians 7:21-23)
In his letter to Philemon, the Apostle Paul returned a slave to his master, though he made it clear he was not returning a slave, but one whom was to be received back no longer "as a slave, but as a brother beloved" (he had been converted by Paul while both were imprisoned), even as Paul's own son or Paul himself. Paul further offered to pay for any debt owed by Philemon. (Philemon 1:1-25).
This letter was an important text in regard to slavery, and was used by both those who defended slavery as well as those who contended for its abolition.[25][26] The former invoked Paul's return of Onesimus, an escaped slave back to his master, Philemon seemingly in contrast to Old Testament law. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)) However, as Roman law required the return of escaped slaves, not returning Onesimus would have left him a servus fugitivus,[27] with a bounty on his head and perhaps a brand on his back.[28][29]
While the overall Christian ethos of love was used in support of abolition, as well as the direction that the regulation of slavery in the New Testament seemed to point, the continued regulation of slavery in the New Testament, and lack of an outright condemnation of was used to support slavery. In response, it is argued[30] while civil rights extend to non-moral aspects. that opposition to slavery at that time likely would have made it worse for the slaves, which made up perhaps half of the often persecuted Christian church. Rather than an explicit repudiation of slavery, the totality of commands regarding slavery reformed it, with the requirements of equal pay and fair and merciful Christian treatment, along with the ideal of freedom for slaves, enabling a tolerance of the entrenched system of slavery at that time. Meanwhile, the primitive church focused on freeing souls from spiritual bondage, and of being victorious and useful in whatever situation they were found, and being a "holy nation", in which there are no racial distinctions in regards to essential equality. (Galatians 3:28). Later, a revived church and the outworking of Christian love would enable national abolishment of slavery, in an age in which social/political opportunity enabled it.
While for much of her history the Roman Catholic Church opposed slavery,[31], the modern influence of Christians in influencing the abolition of slavery was much a result of the outworking of the Reformation and the evangelical Second Great Awakening and the freedom to effect political change, and statesmen who were likeminded toward abolition and even racial equality (which was seldom initially the same).
The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right” and its organization was created by conservative businessmen. Moreover, what destroyed slavery in the non-Western world was Western imperialism.[32]
Some abolitionists supported abolition for more philosophical reasons, while notable evangelicals opposed to slavery included Parliamentarian William Wilberforce, the famous English preacher Charles Spurgeon, who called slavery "the foulest blot" and which "may have to be washed out in blood";[33] Methodist founder John Wesley, who condemned this human bondage as "the sum of all villainies",[34] and Presbyterian Charles Finney and Theodore Weld. Finney preached that slavery was a moral sin, and thus supported its abolition. "I had made up my mind on the question of slavery, and was exceedingly anxious to arouse public attention to the subject. In my prayers and preaching, I so often alluded to slavery, and denounced it.[35] Repentance from slavery was required of souls, once they were enlightened of the subject, while those who continued to support the system incurred "the greatest guilt".[36] Women such as Harriet Beecher Stowe (daughter of abolitionist preacher Lyman Beecher) and Sojourner Truth were also notable voices against slavery.
Among churches, Quakers in England and America were the most evident early supporters of abolition in their countries.[37][38] In America, primitive Methodists in Georgia joined other brethren elsewhere in opposing slavery.
Despite opposition (including by the United States Post Office[39]) writings by abolitionists, such as George Bourne's, "A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument" (1845)[40] and "God Against Slavery" (1857) by George B. Cheever, extensively contended against the institution of slavery, and in particular as practiced in the American South.
The issue of slavery also resulted in divisions among Christian denominations, with some working with slave owners in order to evangelize slaves.
The abolition movement is sometimes invoked in support of the negation of laws regarding sexual behavior. In response, it is evidenced that purely moral laws of the Old Testament, versus judicial and civil legislation, are affirmed and even made stricter in the New Testament. [41]
Islamic scriptures sanction slavery and it was thus a common practice until recent centuries, and has yet to be fully abolished. During the time of Mohammed it was usual for enemy prisoners to be enslaved and treated as spoils of war. It appears that Mohammed himself took slaves after the move to Medina when he had power.[42][43]
And in the context in which its regulated form of slavery was sanctioned (but not commanded) in Scripture, I would rather be a slave than be bound by the demonic victim-entitlement mentality and the "share the wealth" demand as a matter of justice regardless of merit, is from the devil, who selfishly seeks power thru his proxy servants, who war against those persons and institutions which uphold Biblical morality and principles, which the devil works to pervert.
Beginning with Genesis, we see how the devil worked to seduce Eve with the lie that she was a victim of injustice (as if God has selfishly keeping back something from her that He possessed) and thus that rebellion was justified, and that the penalty for unfaithfulness was a lie.
Communists engaged in the same deception, in order to present themselves as saviors of the oppressed (though there was some actual cases to cite) in order to obtain power, with the end being that only these leaders end up possessing what they promise.
Ping
Exodus 21:16 “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”
I saw two videos of white Antifa members trying to use black men and black youths to destroy property. How many more of those incidents don’t we know of? Antifa, like the plantation owners, and overseers of the Antebellum days, are using blacks to do their dirty work for them. Can’t black leaders see what is happening right under their noses? Antifa is exploiting blacks, and putting their lives in danger. When those same blacks are caught destroying property as Antifa told them to, Antifa won’t be anywhere around. Many blacks think Antfa has their best interest in mind. They don’t. They are the useful idiots of Antifa.
This was a useful and informative read, as always.
Thank you!
Sorry. History has been adjusted indicating that ONLY black people were ever enslaved. Supposedly. That neighboring tribes captured and sold them is not relevant. Or something.
Slavery is truly an ancient evil. A great Evil.
Some forms are worse than others, but all versions are evil, including debt slavery.
And it is fueled and justified by charges of racism. Yet to impute guilt to a class of people on the basis of a condition (the tone of their skin) they had no choice over, because of something they had no responsibility for (mistreatment of others past generations of that class, is itself racism. But if you want to impute guilt due to benefits afforded by something they had no choice over, then that transcends races. Those athletes who engage in the above racial slander can be charged as guilty since they were born with DNA that enabled them to have notoriety. Likewise other aspects (most likely Obama would not have been elected if he had a squeaky voice). Instead, while it is true that in both the spiritual and temporal realm souls differ in the amount and manner of grace they have been given, (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 7:7; Exodus 4:11) and "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more," (Luke 12:48) yet no one is to be charged with guilt over what their ancestors did based upon skin color. . (Deuteronomy 24:16; cf. 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)
And,
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
Yet (even) the BBC says:
The Roots of Slavery The term slave has its origins in the word slav. The slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD.
the main religious texts of Judaism, Islam and Christianity all recognise slaves as a separate class of people in society. Going back further in time the Mayans and Aztecs kept slaves in the Americas, as did the Sumerians and Babylonians in the Near East. The Egyptians employed huge numbers of slaves, including the Jews, Europeans and Ethiopians.
The Greeks and Romans kept slaves as soldiers, servants, labourers and even civil servants. The Romans captured slaves from what is now Britain, France and Germany. Slave armies were kept by the Ottomans and Egyptians.
In Imperial Russia in the first half of the 19th century one third of the population were serfs, who like slaves in the Americas, had the status of chattels and could be bought and sold. They were finally freed in 1861 by Emperor Alexander II. Four years later slavery was abolished in the southern states of America following southern defeat in the American Civil War.
In Africa there were a number of societies and kingdoms which kept slaves, before there was any regular commercial contact with Europeans, including the Asanti, the Kings of Bonny and Dahomey. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter1.shtml
the concept of slavery pre-dates the Slavs. You read it in Assyrian and even earlier Sumerian texts. Slavery came about with the transition to agriculture and animal husbandry.
however, within the American context slavery came to mean in the 1800s exclusively Africans. Sure, there were Irish indentured servants and workers like Chinese indentured laborers. Yet for blacks remember that this stigma remained even after the civil war - right down to the Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s endorsement of ‘Birth of a Nation’ and the desegregation in the 60s.
Sure it’s been hijacked by the Democrats (don’t they always hijack divisive issues?) but that doesn’t mean to dismiss it by whatabouttery.
The ideal historical teaching should be
Slavery has been part of most agricultural societies since agriculture and animal husbandry arose. In the 1700s in north America it became exclusively African American slaves (that is before the USA was even created).
It has been generations since slavery ended, since Jim Crow laws ended, since the civil rights movement. There are inequalities, but the correct way forward is not to keep segregating people by race - in census, in terms etc. but to give the poor opportunities not hand-outs.
2 Peter 2:19 ESV
They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption.
For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.
Maps of african routing to slavery:
http://blog.nationalgeographic.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gitn_1027_Slave-Trade-2.png
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.
