Why are there slaves in the Bible

[Zaccheus]

All right, I know the answer. The Bible reports the facts. That does not mean it approves of the reported facts.
I just saw that question online and wondered how many of you have had the question posed to you as proof that Scripture condones slavery.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ve never had that question posed to me.

The Bible contains discussions of many, many practices including polygamy, sex with temple prostitutes, stoning people to death, sending lepers to live away from people in their own colony, etc. that we do not condone today. It was part of the culture of the time thousands of years ago and it should be understood that in view of the teachings of Jesus Christ we have evolved to realize that slavery, and these other practices I mentioned, are affronts against the dignity of the person and not acting with love of neighbor, so we got rid of such practices.

Humanity is constantly evolving towards a more Christ-like ideal. This means our behavior is supposed to improve over time. If it didn’t, we’d still be crucifying thieves on a hill in front of a screaming mob.

 

[Entwhistler]

Well, slavery was part of life back then for basically the entire world. Some people think slavery was a uniquely American thing. That was not the case unfortunately. Romans had slaves, Greeks had slaves, Africans had slaves, Sumerians had slaves, Egyptians had slaves, the Israelites had slaves. That is not to say that is a good thing but the Bible isn’t condoning it. It was just a fact of ancient life and the Israelites were an ancient people.

 

[Hereiam]

Don’t confuse slavery of antiquity with “the peculiar institution” of new world slavery. Its like comparing apples to oranges…it would be akin to saying the Old Testament called for the killing of homosexuals, so it should be okay to do today.

 

[Milt]

The real question should be why there are still slaves in this day and age.

 

[Zaccheus]

The real question should be why there are still slaves in this day and age.

That is an excellent question, Milt: but it was not the question I wanted to address. Feel free to start a discussion on that question though.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Zaccheus, it’s important to note when the first approval of slavery in the Bible seems to occur. After the Hebrews escaped captivity from the Egyptians, God in the desert gives his people several rules including rules for slavery in Exodus 21.

One common response to that is the Hebrews must have owned slaves prior to being enslaved by the Egyptians. The problem with that is several times in the Bible it notes that they were held in captivity for 430 years. That means that none of the people who were in the desert had ever owned slaves. None of their anestors 20 generations earlier had owned slaves. In short, it is God introducing slavery to the Hebrews, and not a contunual practice.

Another common response is that slavery was solely for debtors and prisoners of war, but God in Leviticus 25:44 tells his people that they may purchase slaves.

Yet another response is that God had to consider the practices of other neighboring nations in allowing slavery. The problem with that is God specifically states in Leviticus 18:3 and Leviticus 20:22-23 that his people were not to follow in the practices of those other nations. We know that God gave specific instructions to his people to do things other nations did not do (like honor the Sabbath) and also to not do things other nations did.

One final response is to claim a bright line between the slavery God calls for in the Bible to that of more modern slavery. The problem with that comes from the rules God gives in Exodus 21, which allows the beating of slaves, the manslaughter of a slave (so long as he or she doesn’t die the same day as he or she is beaten), and the blackmail of a male Hebrew slave by witholding his family. It simply doesn’t fly.

I hope this helps.

 

[Zaccheus]

Mike: I refer you to Matthew 19 the first ten verses. Christ told His hearers that since the Israelites of the time of Moses were going to practice divorce “by reason of the hardness of their hearts” God gave them a law to limit the misery divorce caused. Then Christ gave them a new and better law.
Having spent a thousand years or so learning, the Israelites of Christ’s generation were more ready to hear what He had to say.

God did not give the Israelites permission to take slaves. God made rules limiting what they were allowed to do to their slaves, because they were going to do it anyway.

Exodus 21, which allows the beating of slaves, the manslaughter of a slave (so long as he or she doesn’t die the same day as he or she is beaten), and the blackmail of a male Hebrew slave by witholding his family. It simply doesn’t fly.

The laws you describe were barbaric by modern standards. To put it bluntly, the Israelites were barbarians. It took centuries for God to train them up to the point they could accept Christ’s teaching.
And again, the Bible describes what happened. That does not mean God condoned it. “In the beginning it was not so.” --Christ’s words about divorce in Matthew 19.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike: I refer you to Matthew 19 the first ten verses. Christ told His hearers that since the Israelites of the time of Moses were going to practice divorce “by reason of the hardness of their hearts” God gave them a law to limit the misery divorce caused. Then Christ gave them a new and better law.

One thing you didn’t do is post equivalant passages regarding slavery was no longer acceptable. The reason for that is there are no such passages.

Having spent a thousand years or so learning, the Israelites of Christ’s generation were more ready to hear what He had to say.

Those slaves hoping that Christ would say something against the pracice of slavery would have been sorely disappointed. He said not a word against the practice.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

God did not give the Israelites permission to take slaves. God made rules limiting what they were allowed to do to their slaves, because they were going to do it anyway.

Did he make rules limiting how one could murder, since they were going to do it anway? Did he make rules limiting theft, since they were going to do it anyway? He certainly didn’t make allowances for people not honoring the Sabbath, since that meant death. It certainly speaks poorly of a detiy if he gives no quarter on not worshipping him, but says nothing for thousands of years against slavery.

And the thing is we don’t teach children by letting them hurt others and then ease them into telling them that hitting is bad. If your child hits another child you immediately pull him or her aside telling them not to hit (hopefully that not being the first time you told the kid that). In short, we teach kids the wrong thing then years later try to teach them right thing.

Plus this idea that somehow God gave instructions how to purchase, own, beat, slaves jives with God being against slavery makes no sense. If you live in a town where they decide that since there will be those who assualt women, we’ll set limits on it, then tighten those restrictions eventually. I’m not going into a town where they say you can kidnap women so long as they originally came from neighboring nations.

The laws you describe were barbaric by modern standards. To put it bluntly, the Israelites were barbarians. It took centuries for God to train them up to the point they could accept Christ’s teaching.
And again, the Bible describes what happened. That does not mean God condoned it. “In the beginning it was not so.” --Christ’s words about divorce in Matthew 19.

God gave many rules to his people including what festivals to celebrate, and not mixing dairy and meat, and what fringes to where in their clothes, but somehow can’t summon the words to say don’t buy another person because it’s wrong. Heck, God twice calls slaves in the Bible “property” including once as the reason why it’s ok to beat a slave to death. This doesn’t sound like the talk of someone against slavery. In fact, it seems reasonable that of murder, theft, rape, and slavery that the reason why only slavery is not forbidden is because God didn’t see anything wrong with the practice.

Also, you didn’t acknowledge Leviticus 18:3 and Leviticus 20:22-23 where God puts his foot down on following the practices of other nations, when you used the idea that the Israelites wanted to own slaves like those nations. I find that believers are the first to denounce moral relativism and the first to employ it in discussion.

 

[Zaccheus]

@Mike_from_NJ
I still think you’re mistaken to say God condoned slavery; but you’ve shown me that my arguments were at best poorly thought out. I’ll think on this. Thank you for the correction.

 

[rose321]

Those slaves hoping that Christ would say something against the pracice of slavery would have been sorely disappointed. He said not a word against the practice.

Respectfully Opinion only Jesus Preaching and all throughout His Teaching was about rebuking>>>>>Slavery and those who were held by others in bondage >>Those who held others in >>Slavery>>>> for their own self interest???>>>>>suggestion only if one chooses to read Mathew Chapter 23

Jesus boldly stood up, rebukedharshly and strongly defended those who were held in slavery, did he not??

Did Jesus also come to identify who they were also? You are the children of> The Father of Lies? Peace

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Respectfully Opinion only Jesus Preaching and all throughout His Teaching was about rebuking>>>>>Slavery and those who were held by others in bondage >>Those who held others in >>Slavery>>>> for their own self interest???>>>>>suggestion only if one chooses to read Mathew Chapter 23

Where in Matthew 23 Is there a rebuke of slavery? All it gives is a vague idea of that all will be equal in the afterlife.

The only mention Jesus makes regarding the practice of slavery is Luke 12:47-48. In it he says that slaves are to be beaten for doing wrong, but should be beaten less (but still beaten) if the slave didn’t know what he or she was doing was wrong. That is certainly not a rebuke of slavery.

Jesus boldly stood up, rebukedharshly and strongly defended those who were held in slavery, did he not??

He did not. Saying slaves can be beaten is not even close to defending those held in slavery.

Did Jesus also come to identify who they were also? You are the children of> The Father of Lies? Peace

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. I will add one other thing. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Father gave his chosen people specific instructions to implement slavery, to increase its practice, to cause harm and misery to others. Are The Father and The Son in disagreement? Should we practice Marcionism?

 

[midori]

Part of the Bible is Jewish law, and part of it is moral law. We keep the moral law-- “Love God”/“Don’t bear false witness”/“Don’t covet”/“Don’t commit adultery”/“Honor your parents”/etc-- and we discard the cultural law-- “don’t mix fibers”/“don’t eat shellfish”/“if a brother dies, the next brother needs to marry his brother’s widow to give her children in his dead brother’s name”/etc.

Why do we think slavery disappeared? In all the surviving writings that we have left over from ancient Classical sources— Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Germanic, Indus Valley, Chinese, Babylonian, Assyrian, whatever— point to one scrap of writing that has a slave daydreaming about a mythical land of freedom, where all men are equal and slavery is nonexistent. Or perhaps a piece of writing that has someone who was born free, and sinks into slavery through misfortune, and the guy says, “I would rather die than descend into slavery!” The point is, that slavery was taken for granted as a normal part of life by the pagan world, and it wasn’t until you get Christianity, with its radical concept of “we are all children of God” and “love your neighbor as yourself” that people start getting uncomfortable with enslaving their fellows. And after Christianity gets this foothold into people’s consciousness, that’s when it starts to unravel, because until then, it’s just a natural part of economics.

So, for example, you have Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. What was the whole point of this Epistle? Onesimus is a slave, who ran away and possibly stole money from Philemon on the way out. Does Paul keep Onesimus, and go, “Yay, freedom! Stick with me, Onesimus! Be free in Christ!” No. Instead, he writes a letter for Onesimus to take back to Philemon. And does he throw his weight around, knowing that Philemon is a leader in the Colossian church? “Philemon! I’m going to tell you what to do, and you better listen to me, because this is PAUL talking, and Onesimus told me how terribly you treated him, so you better reform!” No. He calls himself “a prisoner for Jesus Christ” and calls Philemon “a fellow laborer” and “brother”, and he asks him to receive Onesimus back as a “brother beloved” and if Onesimus owes anything, to please charge the debt to Paul.

 

[midori]

Slavery is the norm for the time and the culture, but Paul never says “slavery is good” or “slavery is bad”. He just knows that slavery is a very human thing, and a very temporal thing. And Paul was all about discarding the temporal in favor of the eternal. The legal relationship between Philemon and Onesimus wasn’t important: what was important were the state of their souls. Onesimus should not rob Philemon of something that was rightfully his, and should work in humility, obedience, and grace. Philemon, on his part, should not be vengeful-- because an escaped slave could often expect death upon capture-- but should cultivate forgiveness, reconciliation, and even friendship and familial love. The two should not be divided, regardless of their relative legal/social/economic positions, but should be united in Christ.

So the thing about Christianity is that you exist within the civil structures of your culture, but you try to live as a citizen of heaven. And in the process, society gets transformed, once you have enough people doing that. But the point isn’t to transform society into a specific political animal that looks a certain way, or to force other people to do and say as you do. The point is to recognize that the details of your existence on earth are very, very, very brief, compared to your eternity, and so whether you passed your days as a king or as a slave doesn’t matter-- because merely being a king or a slave won’t guarantee you heaven.

 

[Curious11]

Beautifully expressed.

 

[Genesis315]

There are two great articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this topic:

Ethical Aspect of Slavery

Slavery and Christianity

 

[rose321]

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here.

The only mention Jesus makes regarding the practice of slavery is Luke 12:47-48. In it he says that slaves are to be beaten for doing wrong, but should be beaten less (but still beaten) if the slave didn’t know what he or she was doing was wrong. That is certainly not a rebuke of slavery.

Where in Matthew 23 Is there a rebuke of slavery? All it gives is a vague idea of that all will be equal in the afterlife.

all will be equal in the afterlife.

God removes those from slavery bondage out of Egypt?
God removes those held in slavery, bondage in Babylon?
Jesus, John Baptist, Apostles did they not grow up in the OT?

Jesus did He not teach,preach, what was lacking>>All are to be Equal here on Earth?

Instead what does God>> say about slavery and how one can enslave another, maybe God gives us instruction to know?

What does God say about slavery?
Ten Commandments >given by God>>>>No Ten Commandment Law>>> says this Commandment Law>>> only applies for Woman or slave to obey, but man does not have to obey, does it?

His Ten Commandments are to be distributed to provide>>> “Equality Rights, Freedom and Protection for All” His Creation.

God does rebuke, preach, teach about the Lawlessones thou, right?
But God forces no one to obey them or live by them does He?

I chooses not to answer your question on slavery, but rather let>>>> God answer it >>>>By asking>>>What does God say about slavery or how God defines and what He considers is slavery, bondage, etc?

Matthew? First begins with Moses the Law Giver?
Jesus is rebuking whom?>>Denunciation of the Scribes, why?
What do Scribes do, what is their job,in serving HIM, their Master?
What or why does God say, through His great prophet Jeremiah 8:8-9 and repeated else where in Scripture 3x more times also?

Why does Jesus rebuke the Scribes, Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees>> in Matthew 23,?
Your questions asked about Jesus teaching on slavery?
How does one enslave others?>> Does Jesus give us the answers?
Woe Matthew 23: 13-22?
Woe Matthew 23: 23-24?
Woe Matthew 23: 25-26?
Woe Matthew 23 -27-28?
Woe Matthew 23: 29-36?

What does God say about slavery?
<<<Love thy Neighbor as you Love your self? If one makes another their slave, are they>>> Loving their Neighbor as they Love themselves? All are Equal according to His Greatest Commandment right?

Jesus teaching, preaching on>>Honest days work for a Honest days pay?
Exodus 20:15, Deut 24: 14-15, Lev. 19:13

Matthew 24: 45-51 Titled>>The Faithful and Unfaithful Slaves?

WE>> being ALL His Creation >>> WE are All Equal>>>>We are ALL called to Serve our Creator>>Our Master >> We are >All His Labors in His Earthly Garden>>> We are ALL called to be His Gardeners, are we not?

Right in the beginning>> Genesis> 1:28

Did St Peter not say? Do not bow to me, for I too am just a man, and Elder among Elders?>>

Peace

 

[Zaccheus]

The only mention Jesus makes regarding the practice of slavery is Luke 12:47-48. In it he says that slaves are to be beaten for doing wrong, but should be beaten less (but still beaten) if the slave didn’t know what he or she was doing was wrong. That is certainly not a rebuke of slavery.

Context makes a difference, Mike.
In the first place: checking various translations, the word used is not always slave. It is servant. The distinction seems to get blurry when modern translations deal with Scripture. Here is one translation of the parable of the unmerciful servant that uses the word slave to describe the unmerciful servant himself, a man who owed his master an enormous fortune. He couldn’t have been penniless or the story makes no sense.
Further someone else owed a debt to the unmerciful servant, who had the authority to punish his own debtor.

If the second place: if you look at the rest of the passage, Jesus is not really teaching the crowd about how masters should treat their slaves.
He is teaching about how God will reward His servants, meaning all of us. He does this by making an analogy, using existing conditions among those to whom He speaks. He is not saying: “Okay masters, it’s okay to beat your servants.” He is saying: “God will reward the good and faithful, and punish the disobedient and unfaithful. So be God’s good and faithful servant.”

Note the parable of the vineyard, in which Jesus speaks of men who rented some productive real estate (the vineyard), refused to pay their rent and eventually murdered the son of the owner. God would punish them for their crime by killing them. Does that parable mean Jesus condoned the murder of the owner’s messengers and eventually of his son?

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Was Jesus condoning what the rich man did in life?

You taught me earlier that I was guilty of sloppy thinking with regard to this issue. I still thank you for that. But in this case you need to look at the whole chapter, or at least the passages that surround the verse you quoted.

May God bless and keep you, and thank you again for showing me my error in the earlier post.

@Rose321 and @Genesis315 Thank you both for the quotes.

 

[Spyridon]

Because the Bible is an ancient book composed in the ancient world for ancient people amongst whom slavery was a normal part of their world.