Slavery and Christianity

[Damian]

The timothy passage is Paul’s letter to Timothy. Two guys trying to figure it out. Paul starts listing off people that need the biblical law applied in their lives and slave traders made the list. Didn’t specify that slavery is to be stopped, so it’s open to interpretation that could be argued that there is a more ethical way to be a better slave trader when you apply biblical teachings from Paul’s understanding.
However, in Exodus 21, the christian god is directing telling Moses how to own a hebrew slave and how to keep male hebrew slaves longer than 7 years by giving the males hebrew slave a wife to start a family. Where after 7 years, the male hebrew slave is to be set free, but his wife and children are not. If he wants to stay, then you bring him to the court house and pierce his ear as a sign of his choice to stay in servitude for life and is able to be passed on to the slave owner’s children as property.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

Other slaves that are not hebrew, however, are allowed to be kept for life of the slave owner. That is the mandation of the deity itself.

Secular community implies non-religious people.

Secular community implies that everyone is involved and the religious are no more special in the involvement than anyone else.

it was mostly done by religious

The religious had the financial wealth and controlled the infrastructure that the abolitionists needed to supply the underground railroad system. Anyone that was found out to not be religious were driven out of communities, burned, businesses destroyed, etc. That’s why there’s not a secular society that could have paid the artists at the time to paint the ceiling of a secular university or science museum. The religious were the terrorists of these groups and to other competing religions in the area so the secularists had to work within the religious organizations with the finances and the infrastructure at the time.
The religious came to America, not for religious freedom for all, but to create a theocracy under their specific religion. They just couldn’t compete against the power of the established religion of their home country to do this, so they left to find a new open land without the competition. But that’s a side point to this issue.

 

[ATraveller]

The timothy passage is Paul’s letter to Timothy.

Nonetheless, God spoke through Paul. That’s standard Christian belief.
I’m not going to go over Sunday school material - again as I had to earlier.

Secular community implies that everyone is involved and the religious are no more special in the involvement than anyone else.

To you and a minority but not to the general population. “Secular” is defined as non-religious. Had you used a phrase like “people from all groups” or “religious and non-religious alike”, that would have avoided any confusion.
Or it could be that any credit going to specific Christian sects had to be taken away due to your prejudice since those groups were indeed motivated by their Faith.

The religious had the financial wealth and controlled the infrastructure that the abolitionists needed to supply the underground railroad system.

The problem is that the Methodists and Quakers weren’t as wealthy or even well organised as more establishment-friendly denominations. Odd the non-religious abolitionists would use those channels rather than the establishment-friendly ones, which had their own factions against slavery.

Anyone that was found out to not be religious were driven out of communities, burned, businesses destroyed, etc.

In some communities yes, but others no, especially in England. Atheism was growing since the 1700’s. Humanist clubs were common by the late 1800’s.

That’s why there’s not a secular society that could have paid the artists at the time to paint the ceiling of a secular university or science museum.

Citation please.

 

[Larry1700]

I haven’t read Trent Horn’s book, which a previous poster suggested might provide help understanding this topic. I agree that the length of time it took to “educate” or “change the hearts and minds of” God’s chosen people is definitely hard to understand.

The “length of time” quandary is similar when considering why God waited 430 years to free His people from slavery in Egypt, or why it took a couple of thousand years to redeem them through Jesus.

“His ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts.” I’m sure He had a good reason, which I can’t understand.

 

[catholicray]

There are some sloppy understandings being thrown around here. Exodus 21 wasn’t always Exodus 21 to start with. The chapters and verses were not included until much later. All I’ve seen thus far is the attempt to isolate Exodus 21 from Exodus 20 to find fault with God. Utterly sloppy understanding.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It’s qualitative not quantitative.
How much of the OT is binding when the NT has been given? That’s what covenant theology and related hermeneutics cover, which you oppose because it doesn’t give the outcome you want. If we were to follow your method, Christians would still have to perform ritualistic cleansings and keep kosher.

And I already addressed the qualitative part several times now. Those items where God gives detailed instructions on one is to mistreat a slave are of a greater quality than one vague secondhand word. Weak platitudes are no much for repeated intricate specifics, just like my an analogy of the politician talking about supporting troops, but in action showing one’s true self.

And even if we did make the mistake of brushing all of those passages aside that still wouldn’t explain why God would greatly increase the world’s slavery for the length of time between the Jews allegedly left Egypt to Christ’s arrival. God had no reason to allow slavery for even a fraction of a second. God doesn’t change, except when he does. He doesn’t do evil, except when he does.

---

Can you help me understand?
I have heard that Holy Scripture is when it begins with…Thus said Name was mentioned at one time right?..thus he speaks…lets us know who is speaking? When one studies the history of religions in and before Jesus time, there were many different gods or Lords being worshiped right?
Thank you kindly…

Jesus did he not break away himself from his own Temple High Priest and those who served within why? John Baptist also? Calling themselves The Nazarene’s their motto was I am the Way the Truth and the Life follow me? Why was Jesus so displeased with the teaching of his own Temple and foretold its demise, be destroyed? Why?

Peace

Hello, Rose. I’m not sure I can answer your questions. My problem is more with God (in any of his persons) on slavery and no so much on Jesus’ problems with his temple priests.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So your preference would be that the wife and children of the slave be “free” to fend for themselves since they were not part of the debt to be paid? I am a little skeptical that separating the baby born to a slave by giving him/her their freedom would be a wise or moral move.

As I said believers are quick to render God small and impotent if it means defending him from his actions. God can see all possible societal layouts. Look at any military base. A man or woman can serve while his or her family either stays on base or lives off of it. If and when the soldier has completed their duty and leaves the military, the family is not beholden to stay on and serve the military for life.

Secondly, the implicit assumption in the text here is that the Hebrew male had married a non-Hebrew because if she had been Hebrew, the family would have gone free with the man.

And you don’t see a problem with that? It doesn’t bother you that a slave owner would break up a family, separate a man from his wife and children, all because the wife wasn’t Hebrew? Is this the love of God so many songs and poems have been written of?

Your use of the “blackmail” is interesting, although somewhat misleading.

This isn’t a boardroom negotiation here. It’s a man given a Hobson’s choice of giving up his won freedom or leaving behind the ones he loves. That is blackmail in one of its more aching forms.

A translation of the words “for life” might also be misleading since the Hebrew word is olam, meaning “a long time,” but also subject to the Jubilee year dispensation.

CF. The Hebrew word olam, here used, oft signifies not eternity, but only a long time. See Exodus 12:14.
Exodus 21 Matthew Poole's Commentary

That passage is talking aout The Feast of Unleavened Bread, a feast that has been celebrated annually for thousands of years. When you say a long time you must mean a REALLY long time.

But even if that were true and all those many translations I quoted you about non-Hebrew salves serving for life meant a long time (which it doesn’t), that would still be abominable.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I haven’t read Trent Horn’s book, which a previous poster suggested might provide help understanding this topic.

If that book is Hard Sayings by Trent Horn, I already own it. Two chapters near the end are about slavery. I’m going to be charitable, as this is Catholic Answers, and it’s where I ordered the book. It’s not good at all, more moral relativism and claiming passage mean the opposite of what they say.

I agree that the length of time it took to “educate” or “change the hearts and minds of” God’s chosen people is definitely hard to understand.

The “length of time” quandary is similar when considering why God waited 430 years to free His people from slavery in Egypt, or why it took a couple of thousand years to redeem them through Jesus.

If he were silent on the matter for all that time, it would be one thing; but he’s not silent. He’s giving his full blessing to engage in slavery to a tribe of people who hadn’t owned slaves for 400 years and had themselves been enslaved. This isn’t a delay in changing the hearts and minds of his people, but a corrupting of them then letting someone else much later change their hearts and minds

---

There are some sloppy understandings being thrown around here. Exodus 21 wasn’t always Exodus 21 to start with. The chapters and verses were not included until much later. All I’ve seen thus far is the attempt to isolate Exodus 21 from Exodus 20 to find fault with God. Utterly sloppy understanding.

I agree there are some sloppy understands regarding Exodus 21. Believers try to brush aside the slavery in Exodus 21 and separate it from Exodus 20. It’s all part of the same speech. Those pro-slavery Christians want to say those more embarrassing passages (like slavery or not letting a sorceress live) are no longer in play, but not the 10 commandments. That’s why I’m here correcting this understanding.

 

[catholicray]

That’s inaccurate a proper understanding of the passages about slavery ought to be understood in context of Exodus in full. The New Testament sheds light on the term neighbor. If you add that up God is not permitting the dehumanization of any people.

Some try to read their encounter with American slavery back into God’s Word. This is a skewered view of Scripture.

In America currently everyone is participating in a form of slavery. It is right and just to understand God as master. Jesus speaks on this though showing his goal is to make friends not servants of men.

The fact is we all deserve slavery to God but he is clear His intentions are not thus.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

That’s inaccurate a proper understanding of the passages about slavery ought to be understood in context of Exodus in full. The New Testament sheds light on the term neighbor. If you add that up God is not permitting the dehumanization of any people.

He literally calls slaves property twice in the Bible. He said they can be passed down to next of kin like an object. The penalty for negligently allowing a neighbor’s slave to be killed is much less than negligently allowing a neighbor to be killed. It’s all right there. You just have to not pretend it says something it doesn’t.

Some try to read their encounter with American slavery back into God’s Word. This is a skewered view of Scripture.

How is taking what the text says at face value when God is giving the Hebrews a list of laws and regulations a skewed version of Scripture. It’s only believers that skew it by not looking at the text with any rigor.

 

[catholicray]

Again I’m dealing with and critiquing Gods word. In the New Testament Jesus thoroughly defines the term neighbor which if understood faithfully includes slaves mentioned in the Old Testament.

The sins of men and the defense in scripture of their sins is not scripture. The Church has been fighting scriptural defense of immortality since the beginning of the Church in scripture.

See the book of Acts

Sinful men defending their sins through scripture has always been an issue. That doesn’t in any way impute unrighteousness to God.

By the way I study the woke Church movement with brothers of mine whose ancestors experienced American slavery. They find no fault in Gods Word. The fault is in fallen men explicitly.

 

[Isearch]

Is no one going to address that one canon from the council of gangra, whose canons were incorporated in the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which states that one can’t preach that slaves can flee their masters?

I already obtained an answer from the Eastern Orthodox from an another discussion website. They admitted that, in this case, the church would rather have the slaves endure their status as good Christians than risk civil chaos. Additionally, they don’t have teachings such as the right of self defence or just war. But Roman Catholics have those two teachings, which is why I am asking for an explanation for that canon.

 

[catholicray]

What do you find at fault with that answer?

 

[Vonsalza]

catholicray:

That’s inaccurate a proper understanding of the passages about slavery ought to be understood in context of Exodus in full. The New Testament sheds light on the term neighbor. If you add that up God is not permitting the dehumanization of any people.

He literally calls slaves property twice in the Bible. He said they can be passed down to next of kin like an object. The penalty for negligently allowing a neighbor’s slave to be killed is much less than negligently allowing a neighbor to be killed. It’s all right there. You just have to not pretend it says something it doesn’t.

Some try to read their encounter with American slavery back into God’s Word. This is a skewered view of Scripture.

How is taking what the text says at face value when God is giving the Hebrews a list of laws and regulations a skewed version of Scripture. It’s only believers that skew it by not looking at the text with any rigor.

I guess that’s true. One ought to read Exodus 21 as though spoke by the lips of Jesus himself.

The only conclusions a persistent Christian could draw are 1. God changed his mind or 2. God is tolerant of slavery in some way.

 

[Tajho]

I could never figure out why the USA allows abortion, euthanasia, infanticide…

Me Too! And I have been voting against these horrors for 50+ years.
I have been reading “History Of The Catholic Church” by James Hitchcock on page 315 he describes under “Enemies of Faith” he describes “philosphes” a eighteenth century “Enlightened” way of thinking. I cannot help but see what is describe but as a fore runner to today’s “Progressives.” This is where this culture of death is coming from. “The aim of the Enlightenment was not toleration(Note: which was what was espoused)but the replacement of one kind of orthodoxy bu another, demanding liberation from political and religious authority but by no means espousing complete freedom of expression. The philosphes themselves were quite willing to use repression, … ,so silence their opponents.” I see this as the mindset that endorses the abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, et al culter of death.

 

[Tajho]

What made anyone believe they should take land away from Indians? The trail of tears proves that they did a bad thing to demand the land the Indians had.

The “Trail of Tears” was the overstepping of presidential authority. Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court who found if favor of the Cherokee. Legend has it that when the Cherokee won the court case he said, “The court has ruled now let’s see them enforce it.” Note he was known as an “Indian Fighter” who had a long history to atrocities on his family and that he gave in return. Not to justify him but to say it is a part of his profile. The land wasn’t demand it was just plain taken.
Atrocities breed hatred. It’s not rational and work against both parties involved. When war is waged there the beast is unleashed. “Hurt my pack and i’ll hurt yours. Maybe not today but maybe when you can least afford it.”
Example: An American battalion surrenders and is exterminated … no German POWS taken when the American counter attack.
The Nations allied themselves with the British and raided farms and villages in up state New York and western Pennsylvania later they were counter attacked and virtually drive from the country.
None of that is good nor justified but people, especially when they fight are vindictive.

 

[ATraveller]

And I already addressed the qualitative part several times now. Those items where God gives detailed instructions on one is to mistreat a slave are of a greater quality than one vague secondhand word.

Whatever you say.
The verse about enslaving contrary to sound doctrine is a weak platitude. OK then.

 

[rose321]

I agree there are some sloppy understands regarding Exodus 21. Believers try to brush aside the slavery in Exodus 21 and separate it from Exodus 20. It’s all part of the same speech. Those pro-slavery Christians want to say those more embarrassing passages (like slavery or not letting a sorceress live) are no longer in play, but not the 10 commandments. That’s why I’m here correcting this understanding.

Respectfully opinion only The Ten Commandments are repeated 2 times in OT for a reason…8, 9,10 Commandment makes it clear not to covet thy neighbors goods, wife, property or even animal stock oxen right?

Can’t get any clear God is not for slavery…Love your Neighbor as you Love yourself, right? Our Creator, created all Human Beings did he not? Stating all Life in the blood is Sacred upon to me?

As written within Scripture Word…I do not change I am the same as yesterday, I am not a God of confusion, chaos etc right? We have to change?

The Book of Leviticus?..Civil, Moral and Priestly Holy Code Laws right?

Levi 19-20 Listing only
When an Alien (foreigner) resides with you in your land you shall not oppress the the alien. Shall be like a citizens among…
Shall not eat anything with blood in it…
You shall not render an unjust judgment you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great…?
You shall not profit by the blood of your neighbor…slave??
Love your neighbor as you love yourself?

Do not defraud ones labor of his true wages nor to charge anyone interest right?

Deut…6:12 Don’t forget you were once slaves…
Deuti 5:15
Deut 24:18
Deut. 1, 7, 9

Too many OT Bible verses God brings them out of slavery…must not be for slavery right??..but they continue to disobey, stiff neck and not live by His Spoken Word nor his instruction’s among all human beings, their neighbors, right?

Then our Heavenly Father wants us to know??..Those lying Scribes (teachers)?.. Prophets of God… Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say we are wise…lying scribes with their pens?

God mentions all throughout His Spoken Word… so many times they were …stiff neck people… more or less not wanting to listen right? Harden hearts? Greed? Self worship ( Idolatry)
Heavenly Father tells us…How many prophets have I sent to correct your ways and you destroyed them??
Stiff neck?
1 Samuel 6:6
Exodus 7:12-13
Mark 8:7
John 12:40
Acts 7:51-52
Hebrews 3:13-19
Rev 9:20-21

Bible was written by the hands of many many men, over thousands of generations and would they not be ones… who were in power over the nations? There good and bad Kings, rulers also?

Are heavenly Father has given all Free Will has he not?
Their disobedience to living by His Spoken Word, observing them, broke their Covenant with Him also??

Seeking to bring Freedom to all, can be read all throughout the whole Bible right?
Not hard to find our Heavenly Father was not for slavery is it??

Was God also proactive, knew what man would do?
Jesus tells us…Let your ears hear, not just what we read, for He Spoke, Spoken since the beginning of time to his Prophets?

Peace respectfully toward…

 

[HarryStotle]

Those pro-slavery Christians want to say those more embarrassing passages (like slavery or not letting a sorceress live) are no longer in play, but not the 10 commandments. That’s why I’m here correcting this understanding.

Interesting accusation. Is that the same kind of license and loose logic you invoke when claiming “believers are quick to render God small and impotent” as if all the connotations and implications you are prone to accept are the ones that necessarily afflict others in this thread?

You still haven’t made the case the slavery in the OT was akin to chattel slavery rather than indentured servitude. You assume it was and you are quick to presume that as a premise for every claim you have made, but the text doesn’t bear it out – even though, in your imagination, it does.

Does the Bible Support Slavery? - bethinking.org

Does Exodus 21 treat slaves as chattels?​

Exodus 21:18-27 contains laws on how to treat slaves. Verses 18-19 deal with guidance in cases of injury. Verses 26-27 give the consequences of injuring slaves. Verse 21 seems to suggest that the slave is a possession: “for the slave is his money” (ESV). This does not indicate that the master owns the slave and can do what he likes, as the rest of the Old Testament shows that that is clearly not the case, but the “for” indicates the reason that the slave is not to be avenged: it is because the slave is the master’s “money” (literally “silver” ). In other words, because the master benefits from the slave being alive, it is to be presumed that when he struck the slave, he did not intend to kill the slave. The consequences of striking and injuring a slave are given in verses 26-27.

Property, ownership and sale​

In Hebrew, the term for selling and for buying are not distinguished from acquiring without money, so often these words in the context of slavery are about debt slavery or servitude, people “selling” themselves or a daughter in return for something when they have no other economic resources to survive. It is a pledge of future work, temporarily, for a meal today. The selling of a daughter is also related to marriage and dowries.

In interpreting the Old Testament, it is often helpful to go back first to what Creation teaches rather than to start with what the Law stipulates (as Jesus did in relation to questions about divorce). Often the Old Testament Law is a matter of permitting or regulating something, rather than saying that it is good.

 

[HarryStotle]

He literally calls slaves property twice in the Bible. He said they can be passed down to next of kin like an object. The penalty for negligently allowing a neighbor’s slave to be killed is much less than negligently allowing a neighbor to be killed. It’s all right there. You just have to not pretend it says something it doesn’t.

It is only by assuming that slaves were akin to “property” in the Bible that you can reach the conclusion that “passing them down” implies they were property. Assuming what you set out to demonstrate is called what? Ah, yes, begging the question.

If slavery were more like indentured servitude, then “passing them down” would imply that what is being “passed down” is the obligation on the part of the slave to pay a debt to the family that currently holds or owns the right to be paid that debt, and that indebtedness – and not the person cum property – is what is being “passed down.”

 

[HarryStotle]

He literally calls slaves property twice in the Bible.

One more point on God allowing the Israelites to “buy” slaves.

The Hebrew word used in Lev 25:44 is תִּקְנ֖וּ (tiq·nū), which can be translated as “you may purchase.”

Lev 25:44 Leviticus 25:44 Your menservants and maidservants shall come from the nations around you, from whom you may purchase them.

you may purchase

תִּקְנ֖וּ (tiq·nū)

Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine plural

Strong’s Hebrew 7069: To erect, create, to procure, by purchase, to own

The thing is, that translation carries with it our cultural baggage which isn’t anything like the connotation present in ancient Hebrew.

The same word, although in the first person common singular, קָנִ֥יתִי (qā·nî·ṯî) happens to be the word Eve used when she gave birth to Cain. She said, basically, “I have acquired a son.”

Gen 4:1 Genesis 4:1 And Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man," she said.

I have brought forth

קָנִ֥יתִי (qā·nî·ṯî)

Verb - Qal - Perfect - first person common singular

Strong’s Hebrew 7069: To erect, create, to procure, by purchase, to own

Are you claiming that Eve bought or purchased her son, Cain, and that her relationship to him is one of master to slave? Given your insistence that תִּקְנ֖וּ (tiq·nū) “acquired” necessarily implies ownership or buying another person, you would be stuck with that view.