Does The Bible Condone Slavery? Part I

Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

This subject is used so frequently by opponents of Christianity, I felt that it was time to address the issue extensively. First of all, it is important to remember the difference between the old law and the new law, as well as the difference between the 10 commandments and the 613 precepts. The precepts are legal bounds by God for legal cases between men, they are for judicial precedent for the punishment of sin, and they are also for a guide to healthy and holy living demonstrated by the dietary laws and seed laws, whereas the 10 commandments are a condensed form of God’s law that anyone can remember, upon which all of the 613 precepts hang. The precepts are in some ways more detailed versions of the 10 commandments, but more specifically they reveal the way mortal men are to deal with sin in a judicial manner. If a law is contained outside of Exodus 20:1-17 or Deuteronomy 5:4-21, it is a precept. For a deeper understanding of the role of the Old Testament law, and the New Covenant law of Christ, please see the following links respectively.

The Role of the Law -http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20120727/1343415433
New Covenant Law -
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20120829/1346260564

And here’s an article from Apologetics Press that I will be referencing in large part. I find this article to be a work of art, and a masterpiece at that. My purpose in utilizing their info is not in order to receive any of their glory, but instead to take this rather long article, and condense it into bullet points that will hopefully be easy for the reader to remember in a debate/discussion setting. There will also be some additions. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1587

Getting Started

The AP article starts off with a truly inspired point. When grilled by the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-10, Jesus reveals that divorce under the old law was only permitted after infidelity because of the hardness of men’s hearts, not because it was God’s Will to facilitate divorce i.e. God desires that no one would ever get divorced for any reason. This sets a HIGHLY important precedent that (A) just because God allows provision concerning a thing, doesn’t automatically mean that it is His perfect Will, but is instead a concession given in light of the weakness of man, as evidenced by His laws on divorce.

But there are even greater truths held in this passage; read Matthew 19:8-9 “8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (allowed) you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Note three things that this passage seems to indicate, (1) it was possibly Moses who gave the edict on adultery not God, (2) this came after the law was given, and in light of the weakness of man (“from the beginning it was not so” though you could argue that this phrase indicates the beginning of creation rather than the beginning of the law), and (3) In verse 9 Jesus immediately gives His endorsement to this seemingly manmade edict. In summation, it seems possible that Moses altered some laws, and God concedes to the validity of at least this particular alteration. This is highly relevant when discussing the doing away with some OT laws, by the Disciples for example in Acts 15 (remember that in regards to the dietary laws this change was based on a direct vision and command from God in Acts 10 as opposed to a manmade edict or alteration). God seems to empower those who are in charge of the first delivering of a new law to also make adjustments according to their understanding. Carefully note that only Moses and the Disciples have been able to do this as recorded in Scripture (those charged with first delivery of their respective laws).

As for studying the subject of slavery, for the Christian, the question should ALWAYS begin by asking, “what did Jesus teach?” The Old Testament law should be viewed through that lens, and NOT the other way around, in light of the fact that some of the old laws were done away with. Opponents to the Word of God will almost always use the Old Testament in an attempt to define Christianity, effectively putting the cart before the horse. Three common practices for Bible opponents are to (1) take a verse out of context, (2) to use verses that condone things that most modern people will find abhorrent i.e. slavery, death by stoning etc. and (3) to use the record of an act, as evidence that God condones such an act: for example, they will say that because Lot tried to give his daughters to the angry mob who wanted to “know” the angel visitors, then God must condone this. Well, God neither commanded, nor condoned this act, and furthermore, Lot never actually gave his daughters over to the men. It is important to recognize these tactics, and even more important to read, and seek to know and to understand the God of the Bible, in order to defend against such easily slain arguments. Otherwise, you will find your faith shaken, and you will likely become angry and combative with people, rather than reasoning with them in love, while attempting to show them the error of their argument against God (their argument is not against you by the way, it is against God).

What Did Christ Teach?

Luke 22:24-27 “24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.” See also Matthew 23:10 “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

Jesus clearly doesn’t want His followers exercising lordship, but rather we are to be willing servants, as living examples of Christ’s love for mankind. He also knew that among converts to the faith, there would be those who had servants since it was a common practice of the day, and so protection was given to those servants, and a warning for those masters. And remember that important precedent that (A) just because God allows provision concerning a thing, doesn’t automatically mean that it is His perfect Will, but is instead a concession given in light of the weakness of man, as evidenced by His laws on divorce.

Ephesians 6:5-9 “5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. 9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 4:1 “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.”

I Timothy 6:2 “And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort."

Is Slavery Ever Lawful?

(Concept inspired from AP article) Is it lawful to imprison someone who sacrifices his or her child by fire? Is it lawful for that prisoner to be put to death, or to be kept from society and made to work? The nations that were overtaken by the children of Israel did this, and a massive host of other sins, and for these reasons God gave them over into the hands of the children of Israel. God even says in Leviticus 18:25 that the land itself is vomiting out her inhabitants. Some of these individual nations were wiped out, and some were taken into slavery, according to the command of God. For a full list of the grievances before God, read Leviticus 18:6-25 and Deuteronomy 18:9-14. Among them are all manner of sexual sins including beastiality, incest of all kinds, sorcery and witchcraft, idol worship, and of course child sacrifices by fire. Is it unholy to have these nations to serve the children of Israel?

If a man owes someone a large sum of money that he cannot pay back, is it lawful for him to work for his debtor until the debt is paid? This is another main reason for Biblical servitude. See Leviticus 25:47-49.

I’ll jump a little ahead and show that menstealing, which was the method of slavery employed in the US, was forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 21:16, I Timothy 1:9-10), revealing that people sold into slavery in Biblical times were there for a legitimate reason such as for debt and as punishment for crimes, not because their intrinsic value was ignored or because they were stolen to be sold.

Biblical Words for Slave

Quoted from the AP article Quote: “Arndt and Gingrich documented that the Greek word doulos meant “slave,” but that it also was used “in a wider sense” to denote “any kind of dependence.” In 2 Corinthians 4:5, the apostles are called the douloi (plural of doulos) of the Christians. Christ took on the form of a doulos, as stated in Philippians 2:7. Paul designates himself as a doulos of Christ in Romans 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Galatians 1:10, and numerous other passages (1967, pp. 205-206). The term can describe a person who is obligated in some way, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, to another person. Due to this broad use, various translations have employed a wide range of words to render the meaning of doulos in English. Using Romans 1:1 as a case in point, the NKJV has “bondservant,” the New Living Translation has “slave,” the KJV and ASV have “servant,” and the Darby Bible has “bondman."

The Hebrew word ebed is similar to the Greek doulos, in that it can be translated as “slave” or “servant.” In Exodus 4:10, Moses referred to himself as the “servant” (ebed) of God. Abraham called himself the ebed of the angels who came to visit him in Genesis 18:3. In Genesis 39:17-19, Potiphar’s wife described Joseph as the Hebrew ebed, and Genesis 24:2 talks about the eldest ebed in Abraham’s house, who “ruled over all he had.” End Quote

The purpose of this word study is to show the wide array of uses for the word slave/servant, in order to illustrate that the use of the word in Scripture should not automatically draw a comparison to US slavery, simply because the same word is used. It would be like saying that watching baseball is ALWAYS EXACTLY the same experience, regardless of whether it is little league, or the majors. Sometimes the word slave is used to describe a “mutually beneficial” relationship, as evidenced by this quote from the article Quote: “To illustrate further the true nature of much Old Testament slavery, Abraham’s relationship with his slave Eliezer should be examined. In Genesis 15:2-3, Abraham lamented the fact that he was childless. In his dialogue with God, he stated that the heir of his wealth was Eliezer of Damascus. In verse three of chapter 15, Abraham described Eliezer as “one born in my house.” Later, in Genesis 24:2, Abraham’s oldest servant (probably Eliezer) “ruled over all that he had.” Add to this the fact that Abraham armed 318 trained servants (Hebrew ebed) to bring back Lot after he had been captured (Genesis 14:14-15). If the slave/owner relationship was anything less than mutually trusting, Abraham most likely would not have intentionally armed his slaves.” End Quote Deuteronomy 15:16-17 “16 And it shall be, if he (the servant) say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; 17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.” Do the previous examples describe an oppressed and brutalized people as is automatically associated with US slavery? Clearly not; therefore, (B) it is dishonest and unfair to compare US slavery to that of Biblical slavery: when it is carried out according to God’s Word.

Furthermore see Job 31:13-15 and remember that according to God, Job was perfect and upright (Job 1:8) “13 [Job speaking] If I did despise the cause of my manservant or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; 14 what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? 15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?” If a man whom God Himself calls perfect and upright could say this, then how should that logically reflect upon the nature of God concerning slavery? Two conclusions are clear, slavery in and of itself is not evil, and God cares for both the servant and the master. Once again we see that (B) it is dishonest and unfair to compare US slavery to that of Biblical slavery: when it is carried out according to God’s Word.

Does Partiality for Hebrews Equal Racism?

The following is a highly condensed version of a section of the AP article. Many will use certain verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15 or Exodus 21:2, to insist that the God of the Bible is racist in favor of Israelites. This plainly disregards passages such as Deuteronomy 24:14 “Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:” and Leviticus 19:33-34 “33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” See also Deuteronomy 10:17-19, and Acts 17:26-31. Also consider the year of Jubilee where all inhabitants were to be set free, except for those who chose to serve their master for life (Leviticus 25:10). The AP article points out that even in the US today legal citizens have rights that foreigners do not enjoy, such as voting privileges, so to say that a distinction being made between Israelite and stranger should automatically equal racism, would be to say the same of the US today because foreigners cannot vote in our elections. (C) National privileges do not equal racism. Truthfully, the argument for a racist God wouldn’t hold any ground in a court of law. Remember that (D) an assertion generally stands or falls when it has been carried out to it’s full extent, it does not stand simply because it sounds right or because it is well spoken. If someone challenges the Word of God, it is sometimes fruitful to carry their logic out as far as you can take it, because the further you go, the more prominent the cracks become in the logic of their assertions.

Is Biblical Slavery the Same as the Slavery of US History?

Today we hear the word slavery, and we think automatically of the plight of the African American community in the recent past. Is this fair? How does that period, and the treatment of those slaves, compare to the treatment of servants in the Bible? Again I remind you of the varied forms and reasons for servant hood in the Scriptures (criminal punishment, debt payment, but not by menstealing.)

(1) Menstealers: The common practice for wrangling slaves to be sold in the US, was to kidnap them (usually from Africa or from the Native American communities), and sell them into slavery. This practice is punishable by death in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:16), and is also considered a sin in the New Testament (I Timothy 1:9-10), not punishable by death only because capital punishment for sin is now in Christ’s capable hands, no longer in the hands of sinners (John 5:22 & 27, 8:2-7). This prohibition for manstealing in and of itself reveals that (E) people who were slaves for reasons which aligned with the laws of God, were there for legitimate reasons, such as debt (Leviticus 25:47-49) and as punishment for crimes (Leviticus 18:6-25, Deuteronomy 18:9-14[still trying to find better verses to confirm this]) and not because they were stolen (Exodus 21:16).

(2) 6 year limit for Hebrews: In Scripture, Hebrew servants were to be set free on the 7th year (Exodus 21:2). Remember (C) National privileges do not equal racism.

(3) Hebrew life servants are willing: To be a servant for life was the choice of the Hebrew servant, and not of the master (Exodus 21:5-6). Remember (C) National privileges do not equal racism.

(4) Beating forbidden in New Testament: In the US slaves were commonly beaten, and this was after the New Testament was written, where we read this to be forbidden (Ephesians 6:9). Therefore, those who attempted to create a Scriptural defense for slavery were hypocrites if they abused their slaves, or if they condoned it. The actions of hypocrites should not be used to discredit the group to which they claim membership. Some will commonly use OT passages to suggest that God did at one time condone the beating of slaves, and they will also insist that therefore the NT is contradicting the Old. Coming up we will explore the claim that the OT condones the beating of slaves.

(5) Runaway slaves are free: Deuteronomy 23:15-16 “15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: 16 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.” So if a slave was mistreated, he could be free simply by running away. If this law is there, will masters mistreat their servants seeing as they simply have to run away in order to be free? (F) It is neither logical nor Scriptural to assume that God condones the indiscriminate abuse of servants because He gave provision that all they needed to do is run away in order to be free (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) and because He commanded that neither the Israelite nor the stranger should be oppressed (Deuteronomy 24:14). i.e. it wouldn’t hold up in a court of law, so don’t let it stand in a discussion.

(G) Biblical slavery cannot honestly be compared with US slavery, due to a simple, and logical examination of the two, based on facts concerning them. It is like saying all apples are rotten, because I’ve never personally seen a good one.