Is slavery a sin?

[nejisan]

This subject is very intriguing to me. There appears to be nearly an entire pamphlets worth of material here.

I'm gonna sample some of it:

Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Both testaments seem to cover this subject pretty well. So here are my questions:
Is slavery acceptable to the christian God?
If it isn't then why doesn't He condemn it outright?

I have soooo many more questions, but I'll leave it at that for now. I guess I should apologize now to anyone who believes this horse is dead, I haven't seen this subject discussed to a satisfactory conclusion (personal opinion) yet. Thanks to any and all posters.

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 23 by OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 25 by JLB32168]

Hi thank you for your insightful response, especially about the point of Absolutes existing in such a bankrupted worldview. Yes, the strongest arguments that I've encountered with skeptics over the years rely on weak accusations, which most are speculative and claim the hypocrisy of Christianity. Christianity as far as I know is incomparable (just look at the sermon on the mount, truly no man like Christ has ever existed or ever will), which is why there is a revival of Christian Philosophy over the years in secular Universities, but all of that is for another discussion.

There is a lingering misconception about Slavery and Christianity, mainly that some people believe that Christ accepted the practice (because for Christians, Jesus' will is God's will from the Old Testament). For starters, the bible shows us clearly what is God's will and his character if one reads scripture carefully
(which was the point Paul and Christ aimed for, not to give us a book about dogmas, or a legalistic manual that dictates our way of living, but rather know the character of God, so instead of relying on fallible men like the Pharisees to guide our lives, the Holy Spirit is the one who should do this, kind of like showing a man how to fish and feeding him for life rather than fishing for him everyday)

If one reads and studies the bible, one really important fact that is almost always overlooked by skeptics who are trying to show Christianity's hypocrisy when it comes to slavery is when they actually see what Christ thinks about slavery. There are numerous passages in the bible, but if I can give a short answer that is almost always repetitive in all of its books is that Slavery is considered an abomination to God, just like Divorce, but like many institutions that the early Israelites adopted, God conceded with many laws, although God's will clearly is against them. God for that reason left Israel when they were invaded and destroyed by the Roman Empire at 70 AD. God at the same time understood that no one or wordly Government could follow his perfect standards, who can live up to Christ's standards?

“You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment... “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

That is the reason why the Israelites from the Generation of Moses could not walk to the promised land, because they had the mentality of slaves. That's the reason why Moses could not grow up with his family, because if he had that mentality of a slave, there was no way he could have freed his people, he needed the mentality of leader which is the reason for his upbringing. God discourages people from having that mindset of a slave. Christ all throughout his ministry compared sin to slavery/bondage. Exact parallels such as these ones makes one question whether the skeptics that try to argue that Christianity supports slavery really understand the bible and the God of the bible's will.

On the other hand, freedom is compared to liberation of sin and is the right path for all of humanity.

1 Corinthians 7:23 is the most straight forward response from God himself about what he truly thinks about the practice of Slavery,
"You were bought with a price. Do not become slaves of men."

Just like God says you cannot serve two masters (one God and one the world which represent Caesar or Satan) Matthew 6:24 or having fear, in anything other than God, God is the only one who can call lord, who you ought to fear, the only one who you can idolize, etc. Skeptics usually think that this is a capricious quality of God but that depends on one's hermeneutics and philosophy they bring to scriptures which influences how one interprets scripture. My quick philosophical response to this is that God is the source everything to their maximal degree, Goodness doesn't exist apart from God, it is a quality of God, a part of him, just like love, righteousness, justice and so on. When these qualities are perverted and misplaced (love anger jealousy, etc), usually that leads to the perversion of how things ought to be, which is really dangerous.


Any ways, God does talk about slavery positively when it comes to us, his created beings being slaves to him, where he is our master and demands from us our obedience. In every other area that it is not focused on God, in God's perspective is evil and it is a Sin (which God conceded to the people of Israel with certain boundaries and regulations).

http://www.gotquestions.org/slave-to-sin.html

This link will give you more verses about how God equivocates Slavery with Sin.

[shushi_boi]

Just so everyone can know the true will of the God of the bible, a society to him is not judged by how many people are living wealthy but rather who are the poor and the meek of that nation. The weakest of any group are always look after and always taken care of by God, that is God's true kingdom, that's how it will be like.

God does not send Jihadists, Crusaders, Inquisitors, Warlords to bring his kingdom, he sends instead He sends in the meek, the broken, the justice hungry, the peacemakers, the pure-hearted to cultivate his kingdom, the people who you would least expect to do great things like fishermen, prostitutes, homeless people and so on. God embarrasses those who are prideful and exhibits their fruits publicly while those who weren't even considered equal nor human are creating his world. More verses on that;

https://www.openbible.info/topics/prote ... _helpless

[OnceConvinced]

Slavery means that one person, the slave, belongs to, and is the property of, another person, the owner.

While this statement is essentially accurate "property" is generally kept under the control of the owner as long as he or she wishes. This was not the case under the Hebrew system where the slave was in servitude for a fixed period of time.

You are talking about indentured servitude. According to the bible indentured servitude and slavery are two different things:

Leviticus 25:39 "And if your brother becomes poor beside you, and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner."

So let's not get mixed up between the two. When the bible is talking about slavery it really is talking about slavery.

All Hebrew slaves were freed after 7 years of servitude and all slaves could regain their freedom during the jubilee which was every 50th year (regardless of how long they had been in servitude). Any slave (Hebrew or foreigner)'s freedom could be bought back by a blood relative at any time. Any slave that happens to come across the means to buy his freedom was free to do so.

Hebrew slaves were not slaves but servants. Real slaves had no such privileges:

Leviticus 25:45-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Not the very last part of the verse. You shall not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. This implies that it's ok to rule over non-Israelites ruthlessly.

Abusive treatment of one's slave was strictly prohibited by the law

Clearly not as you can see by the previous verse. It was only Israelites who had that protection. REAL slaves however had no such protection:


Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

But here's an interesting scripture. It seems even Servants can be brutalised too!:

Luke 12:47
The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

which stated that Hebrews were to "love their neighbour as themselves". "One's neighbour", as Jesus was later to clarify, was anyone they came into contact with. The same law code ordered that foreigners were to be treated fairly and their rights protected. If the above laws were applied as intended no master would have mistreated or abused his slave.

Jesus says otherwise in Luke 12:47.

Also sexual immorality was illegal. So if a man had sex with a virgin girl (Hebrew or free woman) he had to marry her.

And you see this as moral?

Notice the rest of that passage too:

"and they are found out then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days."

Does that sound like a woman who has all the rights of a wife? She will be not permitted to divorce her rapist. How cruel is that? She is forced to live in a loveless marriage.

Premeditated murder was punishable by death. A slave owner could not simply kill his slave if he ran away or hunt and slaughter him like an animal. Murdering another human being (even if he was a slave) was strictly prohibited.

But manslaughter was fine. See above scripture. It's ok to beat the slave to near death. Just as long as they don't die within two days.

[The slave] is not free to leave, regardless of how he or she is treated

This was not true under the Hebrew system.

A SERVANT was free to leave. A slave was not.

Physically restraining (chaining or tying) ones slaves would be considered a violation of their person (and of the law to love their neighbour) and so slaves were not physically restrained or treated like animals.

Where does it say that in the bible?

so slaves were not physically restrained or treated like animals.

Beating your slave to an inch of death is not treating them like animals?

Buying and selling slaves is not treating them like animals?

They could if they chose "run away" although that would be considered a type of theft since they had contracturally agreed to work for a period of time in return for food and shelter.

A contractual agreement was done in a case of indentured servitude where a person sold themselves into servanthood. However they were not slaves as I point out in Lev 25:39. Slaves were not under contract. Slaves were the property of the owner and as such were under their mercy.

(This option however would not be particularly appealing to a slave since Hebrew slaves were not forced or taken into slavery but enter into it of their own free will

That is indentured servitude. Not slavery. Levi 25:39 shows us that.

Slaves who were taken after invading other countries were not indentured servants. They were slaves and forced into it. Those sold from one person to another were not indentured servants either. They were slaves - forced into it.

to avoid hard circumstances (the exception to the above was someone found guilty of theif but lacking the means to repay what he had stolen, would have to sell himself into slavery for the time it took to pay back what he had stolen).

Indentured servitude. Not slavery.

If they ran away they would of course only find themselves back in the situation they wanted to avoid in the first place).

They were not slaves but servants.

Further slaves that fullfilled their contracts where not sent away "empty handed" but given the financial means to start a new life, something they would forfiet if they left early.

Those were not slaves. They were indentured servants.

As has been explained, under the Mosaic Law servitude of a Hebrew was for a fixed period, so while a son may inherit Hebrew slaves that wouldn't be for very long.

Non-Hebrews could indeed be passed from father to son as part of the son's inheritance. But remember under the Hebrew system the right of buying ones redemtion (freedom) was always a possibility. Slaves did not work for nothing, nor were they prohibited from owning property or trading with their own means so slave could in fact become wealthy and if they so wished buy their own freedom. The right of a blood relative to buy them their freedom also remained in permanence. (see Lev 25: 49).]

Note Leviticus 25:45-46

…45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46'You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

They weren't all under a fixed period as it quite clear by this.

You need to read through Leviticus 25 carefully. Right up until verse 44 it's talking fellow Israelites. It's talking about indentured servitude not slavery. Its not until v44 when slaves are mentioned. These come from the other nations. SLAVES not servants! You can make them SLAVES for LIFE. It says that in vs 46.

Then in vs 47 we get back into indentured servitude again.

So only Israelites are hired servant with a contractual period. Foreigners are slaves and slaves forever. .

[OnceConvinced]

Genesis 24:35: "And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses."

God loves giving people slaves...

I doubt that Abraham treated his servant employees in a cruel, unfair manner. Don't people today have maids and butlers, cooks and gardeners? Most are treated well. What is so bad about God giving Abraham these people?

You're talking about a guy who was willing to brutally sacrifice his own son. If he had that little respect for his own son's life imagine how less he valued his servants and slaves?

Also be careful not to confuse servants with slaves. The bible mentioned both and made it quite clear they were two different things. One lot had to be treated fairly. The others it didn't matter. (see the verses I posted previously).

It looks as though Abe had servants rather than slaves though. But Jesus thought it was ok to beat servants so why not Abe?:

Luke 12:47
The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

[onewithhim]

Genesis 24:35: "And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses."

God loves giving people slaves...

I doubt that Abraham treated his servant employees in a cruel, unfair manner. Don't people today have maids and butlers, cooks and gardeners? Most are treated well. What is so bad about God giving Abraham these people?

You're talking about a guy who was willing to brutally sacrifice his own son. If he had that little respect for his own son's life imagine how less he valued his servants and slaves?

Also be careful not to confuse servants with slaves. The bible mentioned both and made it quite clear they were two different things. One lot had to be treated fairly. The others it didn't matter. (see the verses I posted previously).

It looks as though Abe had servants rather than slaves though. But Jesus thought it was ok to beat servants so why not Abe?:

Luke 12:47
The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

Hello-o. Abraham had enough faith in Almighty God to believe that IF Isaac were to be sacrificed, Jehovah would bring him back to life again. (Hebrews 11:17-19) After all, Jehovah said that the blessing of the nations (Messiah) would come through Isaac.

So you think that Jesus approved of a slave being beaten? I don't think so. He was just stating a fact of the culture.

[Blastcat]

It depends. The Mosaic law allowed and regulated a system of servitude that was both benefitial and merciful. Christians were told to submit to the systems they found themselves under; so owning a slave was not considered a sin in the Christian arrangement. While abuse of that arrangement would be in direct violation to the Christian law of love, the non-believing slave owner would have no regard for God's law, so it would not have been a protection for someone whose owner was not a Christian.

The above Roman system of servitude existed in Jesus day and there is no record he either condemned or approved of it. He did not authorize his followers to fight to overthrow they socially unjust system that existed (see Math 22:21)

Does JW promote slavery, and if not, why not?