When atheists say the Bible supports slavery

[Polycarp86]

I can’t say I’m much of a bible scholar so that’s why I am asking this question… When atheist throw the old “the Bible supports slavery” line, what should one say?

 

[DebChris]

They will probably point to the NT statements that the slave is to be obedient to his master. This exhortation recognizes that slavery was a reality during the time of the Apostles. It is not a political statement supporting the institution of slavery. The owner who becomes Christian is to treat his slaves as brothers.
If slavery were supported by the Bible, why did God send Moses into Egypt? God delivered the Israelites out of slavery. In the same way that God delivered the Israelites out of bondage, He sent his only Son that we might be delivered from the bondage of sin.

 

[JaKael02]

To add:

1.) Early church believed Jesus was to return within their generation and therefore out of the scope and ability of a tiny Church to start trying to influence politics of the Roman Empire.

It was simply out of scope and ability during the years 50-60 A.D. when parts of the bible was written.

2.) Slavery was much different then, than it was during the Africa-to-America slavery that most of us were raised, educated, and formed our perceptions regarding slavery.

Hope this contributes.

James

 

[tarboy]

Would love for someone to explain the below to me.

To add:

2.) Slavery was much different then, than it was during the Africa-to-America slavery that most of us were raised, educated, and formed our perceptions regarding slavery.

 

[JaKael02]

Would love for someone to explain the below to me.

I see what you are hinting at. My statement came off wrong. I apologize.

Slavery is always morally wrong.

What I was trying to convey was that we must learn the differences and similiarities between Roman and American slavery in order to have a proper interpretation of the Biblical writings of that time.

All slavery is wrong, but not all slavery is equal.

For example: Most common slavery in America today is sex slaves.

Kind regards,

James

 

[itullian]

if anything atheism supports slavery more.after all if there’s no God, why shouldn’t the dominant dominate?

 

[tarboy]

JaKael,
I didn’t mean to suggest you thought it was every morally right, but I don’t see any real differences between Roman slavery and colonial slavery.

What are the differences that affect proper interpretation of the bible?

I see what you are hinting at. My statement came off wrong. I apologize.

Slavery is always morally wrong.

What I was trying to convey was that we must learn the differences and similiarities between Roman and American slavery in order to have a proper interpretation of the Biblical writings of that time.

All slavery is wrong, but not all slavery is equal.

For example: Most common slavery in America today is sex slaves.

Kind regards,

James

 

[wondrousgnat]

Before the Civil War abolitionists relied on moral opinions to oppose slavery. Slave owners used the bible. Also some slave owners were atheists and Darwin’s theory of evolution gave them the “facts” to support the concept that Blacks were inferior and therefore justified slavery. And KKK members may be Christians of some sort but are also believers in evolution.

 

[aicirt]

Would love for someone to explain the below to me.

Sarah, wife of Abraham, had a maidservant, Hagar, basically a slave. Oddly enough, she was thought to be a daughter of an Egyptian king who probably gave her to Sarah as a gift. When Sarah died, Abraham brought her back as his second wife.

I believe a slave owned by a Jew could only be held so long and then had to be set free.

Roman and Greek slaves has certain rights like owning property.

Indentured slaves existed in the early years of the US. One offered his service to pay a debt. Many came over from England to work off their debts.

Many slave owners in the US would rather have the poor whites like the new Irish immigrants work at lowly and dangerous jobs than jeopardize the lives of their black slaves who were worth money to them and in whom they had made an investment.

Black slave families in Louisiana could not be broken up. Children stayed with their parents until they reached their teens. Louisiana followed the Napoleonic Code of Law.

 

[mcrow]

As the poster above says, Biblical slaves and what we are accustomed to with the term are two different things.

During biblical times slaves were most often indentured. Basically how it would work is that the poor person would work for "owner’ for 3-7 years at which time they’d be released from their agreement. Many times a poor person would have no place to live and the owner would offer food and shelter for an agreed upon term of service. Other times the servant/slave would be someone that owed the “owner” money so the person would basically be working off their debt. Some times a young man would be an indentured servant in order to win the "owners’ daughter for marriage, they’d work for 3-7 years and the father would give permission to marry his daughter. Most of the time they were much better treated than the slaves of the American South and of course would eventually free.

That’s not to say it was just a job either, they basically had to do whatever the owner asked and work as many hours as they asked and they’d get no pay. However, in biblical times food and shelter was considred good pay.

 

[DebChris]

Sarah, wife of Abraham, had a maidservant, Hagar, basically a slave. Oddly enough, she was thought to be a daughter of an Egyptian king who probably gave her to Sarah as a gift. When Sarah died, Abraham brought her back as his second wife.

I believe a slave owned by a Jew could only be held so long and then had to be set free.

Roman and Greek slaves has certain rights like owning property.

Indentured slaves existed in the early years of the US. One offered his service to pay a debt. Many came over from England to work off their debts.

Many slave owners in the US would rather have the poor whites like the new Irish immigrants work at lowly and dangerous jobs than jeopardize the lives of their black slaves who were worth money to them and in whom they had made an investment.

Black slave families in Louisiana could not be broken up. Children stayed with their parents until they reached their teens. Louisiana followed the Napoleonic Code of Law.

Abraham predates the Israelites (Jews). He is the father of both Isaac, to whom the Jewish people trace their lineage, and Ismail, to whom the Muslims trace their lineage. Sarai (later Sarah) gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham as concubine (Gen 16:1). She does not return to Abraham after he sends her away in Gen. 21:14.

Leviticus ch. 25 deals with the Jubilee year in which a countryman (a fellow Israelite) is to be released from service. Slaves bought from neighboring nations may become hereditary property (Lev. 25:44-46).

 

[aicirt]

Abraham predates the Israelites (Jews). He is the father of both Isaac, to whom the Jewish people trace their lineage, and Ismail, to whom the Muslims trace their lineage. Sarai (later Sarah) gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham as concubine (Gen 16:1). She does not return to Abraham after he sends her away in Gen. 21:14.

Leviticus ch. 25 deals with the Jubilee year in which a countryman (a fellow Israelite) is to be released from service. Slaves bought from neighboring nations may become hereditary property (Lev. 25:44-46).

Abraham is the father of the Jews. He was given a woman for his wife to be used as a maid. His wife gave her to Abraham to bare a son. Don’t think Hagar had a choice. Hagar was not a free person to do what she wished.

 

[DebChris]

Abraham is the father of the Jews. He was given a woman for his wife to be used as a maid. His wife gave her to Abraham to bare a son. Don’t think Hagar had a choice. Hagar was not a free person to do what she wished.

In Galatians 4:21-31, St. Paul discourses on Christian freedom using Hagar and Sarah as allegory. “The son of the slave woman (Hagar) was born naturally, the son of the freeborn (Isaac) through a promise.” Hagar is in slavery along with her children. The son of the slave woman does not share in the inheritance with the son.
Saint Paul continues in Chapter 5 to exhort the Christian community to “stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery” to sin.

 

[Hokomai]

Before the Civil War abolitionists relied on moral opinions to oppose slavery. Slave owners used the bible. Also some slave owners were atheists and Darwin’s theory of evolution gave them the “facts” to support the concept that Blacks were inferior and therefore justified slavery. And KKK members may be Christians of some sort but are also believers in evolution.

Do you know of a documented case of an atheist slave-owner who used Darwin’s theory as justification?

 

[Hokomai]

I can’t say I’m much of a bible scholar so that’s why I am asking this question… When atheist throw the old “the Bible supports slavery” line, what should one say?

You should agree with them because it is true.

 

[aicirt]

In Galatians 4:21-31, St. Paul discourses on Christian freedom using Hagar and Sarah as allegory. “The son of the slave woman (Hagar) was born naturally, the son of the freeborn (Isaac) through a promise.” Hagar is in slavery along with her children. The son of the slave woman does not share in the inheritance with the son.
Saint Paul continues in Chapter 5 to exhort the Christian community to “stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery” to sin.

Fine. St. Paul is using this as an example so we don’t submit to temptation and becomes slaves to sin. My previous comments were examples of slavey through the ages.

As an aside, Hagar’s son was also probably circumcised since all males were after Abraham formed the covenant with God. This would make him a Jew too. And Muslims believe he is there ancestor as well as Abraham.

 

[loozcannon]

They will probably point to the NT statements that the slave is to be obedient to his master. This exhortation recognizes that slavery was a reality during the time of the Apostles. It is not a political statement supporting the institution of slavery. The owner who becomes Christian is to treat his slaves as brothers.
If slavery were supported by the Bible, why did God send Moses into Egypt? God delivered the Israelites out of slavery. In the same way that God delivered the Israelites out of bondage, He sent his only Son that we might be delivered from the bondage of sin.

That’s basically how I interpret it. Slavery was legal during the day and it may have been Paul trying not to rock the boat, thinking Christ would return in their life time.

Peace.

 

[aicirt]

Do you know of a documented case of an atheist slave-owner who used Darwin’s theory as justification?

Found your question interesting so I Googled. Darwin was an abolitionist and a humanatarian. Believed that compassion somehow was the dividing factor making men above animals.

I didn’t hunt down an atheist slave-owner who used Darwin’s theory as justification but I’m sure it was used. Darwin started publishing in the 1830s. What slave owner, atheist or Christian, wouldn’t grab it for justification even though the author was against slavery?

Also he was born on same day as Lincoln, married his cousing Ann Wedgewood, had 10 children. I’m wondering if Wedgewood was the china company because it put out a plate in support of abolition.

 

[wondrousgnat]

I am a Civil War buff and read a lot about it. And I pay less attention to the military aspects of the war. This is something I have known for a long time. And I know I read it again recently in one of the Civil War magazines I subscribe to. But which one I do not recall (tho I think it was Civial War Monitor).

 

[DebChris]

Fine. St. Paul is using this as an example so we don’t submit to temptation and becomes slaves to sin. My previous comments were examples of slavey through the ages.

As an aside, Hagar’s son was also probably circumcised since all males were after Abraham formed the covenant with God. This would make him a Jew too. And Muslims believe he is there ancestor as well as Abraham.

In Genesis Chapter 17, God establishes His covenant with Abraham. Abraham is to become a host of many nations (Gen. 17:4). Abraham, Ismael, and all his servants are circumcised (Gen. 17:23-27). In Chapter 21:13, God promises Abraham that He will make a great nation of Ismael. This is a separate nation from the Jews who descend, not from Ismael, but from Isaac. Both nations, Jew and Arab alike, descend from Abraham. Yes, both Muslims and Jews are circumcised.

Deuteronomy 15:12-18 deals with Hebrew slaves. The slave is to be released in the seventh year. “Remember that you too were once slaves in Egypt, and the Lord, your God, ransomed you”. (Deut. 15:15). A provision is also made for the slave who does not want to leave his master because of his devotion. An awl is placed in the slave’s ear and he becomes a slave forever. All debts are “paid in full” in the sabbatical year.
The standard length of time for indentured servants during colonial times was generally seven years. Apprentices were likewise indentured.