Board index ‹ Slavery in the Bible

[Gass]

I think not many Christians know where the Bible stands on slavery. I think many probably assume the Bible either has no stance on slavery or is against it with the Bible being used from both sides the abolitionists and slave owners in American history at least. Ending slavery in the other European countries I'm not as familiar with, but I'm sure both sides for and against used the Bible. European countries ended slavery before the US ended slavery. The issue now comes down for Christians as where does the Bible officially stand on slavery.

The Old and New Testament are at least okay with slavery. I know Christians try to rationalize it by comparing it to indentured servants or captives of war, but the basic idea of owning another individual has been the same since the Roman times and prior. I would like to know how do Christians feel about this? Regardless on the type of slavery it is still owning an individual. Are Christians okay with this? Why follow a Bible that is okay with slavery when modern times majority of the countries in the world agree that owning another individual is horrible? Why did God maintain the status quo in the Old Testament and New Testament if God is timeless? It would understand in the modern era slavery would be outlawed or at least suppressed.

This was one of my main issues that lead me away from Christianity. I could not be apart of something that is at least okay with slavery. I would think majority of us and even Christians if they would read their book from start to finish would agree slavery is wrong. Studying early Church fathers like Tertullian using slavery as a defense to claim Christians are Romans not atheists. Early Christians used anything to maintain the status quo or at least say to the Romans they are Roman to defend themselves from the off and on persecution or debates.

[jimwalton]

Then you left Christianity for the wrong reasons. Please come back to faith.

The foundation of slavery as a moral practice rests on the concept of the fundamental inequality of human beings, and that it is both right and good to treat some people as less than human. From the outset, I can say with confidence that the Bible teaches no such thing. The Bible teaches that all humans are made in the image of God and endowed with the dignity that status confers. It teaches that all humans are endowed with this inalienable sanctity of incalculable worth and dignity. As such, owning another human being and treating them like property is contrary to the value God has made inherent in every individual of the human race.

Dr. Craig Blomberg rightly assures us that "the most important matter is [in what the Bible] actually says, and there is not a single text anywhere in the Bible that commands slavery."

Words change in their meaning through the eras. Slavery in the ancient world didn't mean what slavery means to us. With this accusation we need to distinguish between what we as moderns mean by "slavery" and what the ancients meant by slavery. Dr. Paul Wright, the president of Jerusalem University College, says, "When we think of slavery, the first thing that comes to mind is either slavery in the pre-Civil War U.S. or slavery as we hear it in places of the modern Middle East (via ISIS or such groups).

"The textual evidence that we have for slavery in the ancient world (—by this I mean the ancient Near East, the context in which ancient Israel arose, not ancient Rome) shows by and large a different kind of 'institution' (that's not the right word to use). For this reason, the Hebrew word, eved, is better translated 'servant.' The overall textual evidence from the ancient Near East shows that slaves had certain rights—they could own property, for instance, or determine inheritance. Or they could become free, as the Bible allows, given certain circumstances. They were typically not bought and sold, opposite as the case in the medieval and modern worlds. 'Forced Labor,' or the corvée, is a more complicated issue, essentially a tax on person by the government for a certain period of time (e.g., 1 Kings 9:15). Note that the servants that Israel is allowed to take from among the foreigners are able to receive inheritance from their 'owner' (Lev. 25:46).

"The larger question is to what extent the Bible participates in the world of the ancient Near East, and to what extent it expresses a set of ethical standards which at the same time presuppose it yet works to change it. There’s a whole lot of middle ground, actually. This is what makes an understanding of the context of that day so vitally important as a place to start.”

Dr. Wright continues that "there is no evidence of chattel slavery in the ancient Near East. While slavery was known in many cultures there, the type of slavery was debt-slavery, punishment for crime, enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves."

Even about Leviticus 25.46 ("You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life") Jacob Milgrom says: "The law merely indicates that the jubilee doesn't apply to non-Israelite slaves. 'It does not imply that the slave is a piece of property at the mercy of his master' (Mendelsohn 1962:388)."

"Another indication that slaves were not simply viewed as property to be treated however the master wished can be seen in the fact that slaves sometimes shared rights of inheritance (Genesis 15.2-3), where Abraham’s servant will inherit his property if Abraham dies childless, and Genesis 30.1-13, where the sons of Leah's slaves become equal heirs with the sons of Leah and Rachel in the family of Jacob.”

"Slavery and indentured servitude in Scripture involved ownership of a person's labor, not ownership of the person. Any approach to slavery that implies one person can legitimately own another is contrary to Scripture because it denies the humanity of the slave."

And lastly, there is absolutely no extrabiblical data on any slaves in Israel. The private and public documents of the ancient Near East from 3000 BC to the times of the New Testament are full of references to the practice of slavery in the parallel cultures, but nothing from Israel. Cole agrees and says that "slavery in Israel was rural, domestic, and small scale. There were no 'slave pens' of imperial Rome, or the racial subjugation of colonial America." What seems likely is that slavery hardly existed in ancient Israel.

So let me try to pull this together for you.

* There was no such thing as chattel slavery in the ancient world. That didn't happen until the Greco-Roman era, and then just as tragically in the colonial West. That is not what the Bible means by "slavery."
* Most "slaves" of the ancient world were debt slaves or corvee laborers. Debt slaves were more like what we call employees now (working every day to pay off our debts); corvee slaves were employees of the government, much like FDR's CCC.
* The laws in Exodus and Leviticus about slaves are casuistic law (case law). They speak of hypothetical situations to guide judges; we cannot assume anything about them is an actual historical reality.
* There is no extrabiblical data on slaves in Israel. From all our records, it seems altogether likely that slavery hardly existed in ancient Israel, and certainly not chattel slavery.

[Kev Schmev]

So then just so happens that ALL the pictures we have of Jesus, painted by Christians, that go back for zillions of years are white

and just so happens ALL the slaves since the founding of the USA have been black and not white.

[jimwalton]

The issue of race has nothing to do with what the Bible says about slavery. The colonialists were racist, but not because of anything the Bible says. The Bible says nothing about black people being inferior, or black people should be enslaved, or ANYTHING about racism. In the Bible there is only one race—the human race.

Because European artists painted Jesus as white has nothing to do with the slavery question but only with their ethnocentrism. Many cultural groups paint Jesus conforming to their ethnic identity. This has nothing to do with what the Bible says about slavery.

I abhor that all the slaves since the founding of the USA have been black and not white. It was a horrific tragedy. But don't overlook the horrible treatment the whites also gave the Asians and the Native Americans. I don't defend them: they were ethnocentric, and many of them racist. But the question at hand is what does the Bible say about slavery, and your comments don't seem to contribute to that discussion.

[Gass]

> The foundation of slavery as a moral practice rests on the concept of the fundamental inequality of human beings, and that it is both right and good to treat some people as less than human. From the outset, I can say with confidence that the Bible teaches no such thing. The Bible teaches that all humans are made in the image of God and endowed with the dignity that status confers. It teaches that all humans are endowed with this inalienable sanctity of incalculable worth and dignity. As such, owning another human being and treating them like property is contrary to the value God has made inherent in every individual of the human race.

Maybe treat mass murders as less than human, but that does not mean I want to own them as property. I can tell you are wrong the Bible both Old and New Testament is okay with slavery. In the Old Testament God gives specific instructions on how to own slaves longer.

> Dr. Craig Blomberg rightly assures us that "the most important matter is [in what the Bible] actually says, and there is not a single text anywhere in the Bible that commands slavery."

I don't care what he says. I can tell you are wrong. Leviticus 25:44-46 for Old Testament example.

And the rest you said is just wrong. I don't care what some other individual has to say. If the Bible is confusing on the matter then you should take that up with the authors of the original text for making it confusing. Yours and this Blomberg interpretation is just wrong.

[jimwalton]

> but that does not mean I want to own them as property.

No one does. As I said, in the Bible they didn't own people as property. They owned their labor. They were debt slaves, not chattel slaves. I presume you posted the conversation because you were open to information. If you are not, I don't understand why you post in a debate forum.

> I can tell you are wrong the Bible both Old and New Testament is okay with slavery.

The Bible is not OK with slavery. History is quite resonant with the reality that though people who were misinformed treated the Bible as a justification for slavery, in reality and in history the end of slavery in Greco-Rome as well as in the colonial West came because of people and their Christian convictions. It's a matter of established history.

God never commands slavery, and he never endorses it. In the OT slavery was debt slavery, not ownership of persons, and all references pertain to that.

> In the Old Testament God gives specific instructions on how to own slaves longer.

?????? You'll have to show me this one. Leviticus 25 talks about children and inherited property, but that's not instructions about how to keep them longer.

> I don't care what he says.

Why do you start a debate if you have no desire to discuss?

> I can tell you are wrong. Leviticus 25.44-46.

As I quoted Jacob Milgrom, the false assumption here is that this foreigner is a chattel slave; he is NOT. "It does not imply that the slave is a piece of property at the mercy of his master." They are more rightly called "servants," as Dr. Wright said.

Perhaps you are unaware that foreigners in Israel were not allowed to own property. The only way they could survive was by aligning themselves with an Israelite family and work for them as an employee (the ancient word: slave). Sometimes they had to work for generations before they could own land. But this employee could not be treated harshly (Job 31.13, 15; Ex. 21). But these employees might become rich (Ziba, the slave of Saul, 2 Sam. 9.10b; 16.4) and achieve high social status (Doeg the Edomite, 1 Sam. 21.8; Zelek the Ammonite, 2 Sam. 23.37; Uriah the Hittite, 2 Sam. 1.3, all high officers in the royal court or army). Even though he may have totally assimilated into Israelite society, even to the point of being a zealous worshiper of YHWH (a matter emphasized in the Doeg and Uriah accounts), he retained his ethnic label and was not reckoned an Israelite. He was still a "foreigner" and thus a "slave," though no one owned him. They owned his labor.

> And the rest you said is just wrong. I don't care what some other individual has to say.

I trust the people who have studied the language, the texts, and the ancient cultures over an individual who reads the English words at their shallowest.

> Yours and this Blomberg interpretation is just wrong.

Mine, Blomberg's, Wright's, Milgrom's, and Copan's. And the meaning of the text itself. Since there was no chattel slavery in ancient Israel, we cannot understand and interpret Lev. 25.44-46 as chattel slavery. If you didn't want to have a conversation, and are not open to what anyone has to say, why did you initiate the post?

[Ain's Enough]

Why does the Bible say that we should protect people who beat their slaves, as long as that slave doesn't die from the beating within two days?

that's the religion you want OP to go back to?

[jimwalton]

The Bible never says we should protect people who beat their slaves. The Bible never commands, encourages, or justifies people who beat their slaves. And if you read Exodus 21 carefully, you'll notice that an owner who beats their slave is to be recompensed eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and if he has injured the slave that slave is to go free. And if the owner kills the slave the owner is to be killed.

[Batman]

> Even about Leviticus 25.46 ("You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life") Jacob Milgrom says: "The law merely indicates that the jubilee doesn't apply to non-Israelite slaves. 'It does not imply that the slave is a piece of property at the mercy of his master' (Mendelsohn 1962:388)."

Someone else already brought up the section about "people who beat their slaves, as long as that slave doesn't die from the beating within two days," but I also want to point out that one of the verses discussing that issue (Exodus 21:21) specifically says that the owner shouldn't be punished if the slave recovers after a couple days, because the slave is his property. Also...

> Dr. Wright continues that "there is no evidence of chattel slavery in the ancient Near East. While slavery was known in many cultures there, the type of slavery was debt-slavery, punishment for crime, enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves."

What about two verses before the one you quoted (Lev. 25:44), which says that Israelites may buy slaves from the nations around them? It doesn't matter whether Israelites actually availed themselves of that law or not, the point is that the supposedly all-good God of the Bible permitted it.

[jimwalton]

Ex. 21.21. First of all, it's casuistic law—hypothetical situations to guide a judge. There is no indication that such things are actually happening. Second, it is considered within the rights of the owner to discipline the servant. Third, the passage affirms the servant's full personhood. He is not a "thing," but a human being to be treated with dignity. If the servant "recovers" (again, case law), the implication is that it was disciplinary, not a real beating. The guidance for the judge is that the owner is not to be punished if there was no real harm. If there was harm, the slave is to go free (Ex. 21.26-27), and if there is death the owner is to be executed (Ex. 21.12, 20).

"Because the slave is his property." The Hebrew word is כַסְפּוֹ, which means "money." The servant is part of his financial wellbeing, one of his assets, so to speak, and so that servant is part of his income. If he loses work because he mistreats someone, that's his own financial loss. Harsh treatment of a servant would impact his own wallet.

Lev. 25.44. Chattel slavery has three characteristics: (1) a slave is property, (2) the slave owner's rights over the slave's person and work were total and absolute, and (3) the slave was stopped of his identity: racial, social, and marital. NONE of these situations describe slavery in ancient Israel. Instead, as Dr. Paul Copan writes...

1. These foreigners are still nowhere near the chattel slaves of the antebellum South (US).

2. A significant presence of apparently resentful foreigners required stricter measures than those for cooperative aliens who were willing to follow Israel’s laws.

3. Only Israelites were allowed to own land in Israel (which ultimately belonged to YHWH: Lev. 25.23; Josh. 22.19). The only way for a foreigner to survive was to be incorporated into an Israelite home to serve there.

4. Runaway slaves were given protection within Israel’s borders (Dt. 23.15-16). Kidnapping slaves was also prohibited (Ex. 21.16; Dt. 24.7). Serving within Israelite households was a safe haven for any foreigner; it was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability.

5. All slaves were to be released the 7th year, presumably to go back to his country of origin. They could choose to stay, however.

> the supposedly all-good God of the Bible permitted it.

Since we are not talking about chattel slavery, and we are not talking about the ownership of another person, all that the all-good God permitted was working off a debt under the command of another person. We do that today and call it "employment." Their word for employment was "slavery," so it's not really a problem that God permitted it. Sometimes people need financial help, and that's what was going on in Israelite society.