A Christian's Rationale For Owning Slaves...

[POI]

Taken from "1213" --> http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Owning_slaves.html

Notably, the quote below:

Owning slaves?

According to the Old Testament, peoples at least had right to own slaves. Many wonder, is that same right also valid for today’s disciples of Jesus.

1) Jesus didn’t directly deny owning slaves. So maybe it can be taught that it is valid right today also. However Jesus taught to do same to others that you want others to do to you. Therefore, if you don’t want yourself to be slave, don’t keep others in that position.

2) Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Mat. 7:12

3) It is also good to notice that disciples of Jesus shouldn’t consider themselves superior to others. If we are all brothers and sisters, how could we keep other as a slave? Rather we should be servants to each other.

*************************

My response, thus far:

1) You are right, Jesus never tells humans that slavery is wrong. Instead, He looks to endorse the following two Bible passages A) and B):

A) Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Col. 3:22-24)

B) All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves. (1 Tim. 6:1-2)

A) This massage tells the slave to remain subservient, work as hard as one can; even when the master is away. This way, God will be proud of you, via the slave.

B) Respect your slave master. If the master happens to be a Christian, respect them even more.

As you can see, Jesus appears not to be against slavery at all. In fact, He condones such practices.

2) If this were the case for all humans, (the free and the enslaved), then Jesus would not have endorsed instructions for slavery.

3) Please remember the 'golden rule' was already expressed in the OT (i.e.) "you shall love your neighbor as yourself"(Lev. 19:18). Either never speak about the topic of slavery at all, or, tell the Bible readers that slavery is 'wrong'. Instead, the OT already instructs on how you may obtain slaves, how you may beat your slaves, and informs the reader that the slave master can own the slave for life, and also treat them as their property for life. The NT then merely reinforces such OT instruction.

Question(s) for debate:

Why didn't Jesus just abolish slavery practices, or never mention slavery at all? Seems rather confusing, to have left what He left in the NT Bible....?

Answer (post #401)

I'd say that the matter is clear. The OT does refer to chattel slavery - for foreigners. The Bible gives rules (attempting to be fair, no denial) for Jews enslaving others. It does not look like God, knowing that slavery is going to be a no- no in the age when his religion is user scrutiny, thought that he should make it clear that it was wrong. It looks like God thought it was ok, within limits. Paul gave it a thumbs -up and Jesus at least by not commenting, seems to be unaware that it is going to be one of the worst human crimes in modern times.

Thus, it is one more reason to believe the Bible, cover to cover...as the word of men of the time. And that's all it is. It is not even a valid guide to life- advice, morals or social conduct. It is, like any other book, judged by human moral standards, and I can prove it. If Christians did not judge the Bible by human moral codes, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[Miles]

In the eye's of God, no crime was then committed.

LEVITICUS 19:18 b - Aramaic Bible in Plain English

.... love your fellow man as yourself. I AM LORD JEHOVAH.

If there was one law that underpinned the Mosaic "Constitution " providing the basis and overriding principle for all other laws that governed civic behaviour it is found in Leviticus 19:18b. Jesus pointed to it as the second Greatest law in scripture. Just as the American constitution provides the basis for that which can and cannot be established in law (recognising certain inalienable rights), so Leviticus 19:18 framed all legal, social and religious behaviour. In short, for the ancient Israelites (who lived under a theocratic rather than a secular system), Gods point of view of how citizens should treat each other was enshrined in their law.

SEVERELY BEATING ONE'S SLAVE WAS UNLOVING AND THUS ILLEGAL

If this is the case then absolutely anything one did that's not loving or affectionate

unloving adjective
un·​lov·​ing | \ ˌən-ˈlə-viŋ
Definition of unloving
: not loving or affectionate
source: Merriam-Webster

is thus illegal. Interesting. Hmmmmmmmmm!

.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is a clever apologetic in implying (if I follow your drift) that Jesus 'Fulfilled' this "Law" by emphasising being nice rather than observing Rules. On the other hand, again if I get your drift, it makes normal behaviour illegal if 'unloving'. Even a thought crime. But the thing about Thought Crimes is that it needs Rules about how far and what is the crime, just as Leviticus establishes how far one can thrash a slave and not be "Illegal".

The point here is that God permits not only the owning of slaves but how much one can whup 'em before He says 'That's breaking my Laws'. Owning slaves is Ok with God, and even knocking them about, so long as it doesn't go beyond what offends His delicate sensibilities.

it comes back to the same thing in the end; the Bible is Ok with slavery; modern morality is not. Ergo, modern morals are better than Biblical. Thus the Bible is an old book of ideas, morals and customs that were Ok in the day but is not a guide for us today, and hasn't been since the Emancipation of slaves, Votes for women and the pill.

[theophile]

Why didn't Jesus just abolish slavery practices, or never mention slavery at all? Seems rather confusing, to have left what He left in the NT Bible....?

Slavery is a major concern of Jesus' ministry, it just goes by a different name: servanthood. That's what Jesus identifies as: a servant. So he doesn't abolish it because why would he abolish what he is and calls us to be?

Rather than abolishing slavery he would transform it into servanthood.

speaking about the sanction
Interesting take... Are some of these now newly defined 'servants' still to be kept for life, as property, and beaten with virtual impunity, by their masters; or not?

No, that doesn't square at all with the idea of love your neighbor and servanthood.

So how do you reconcile the 'golden rule' with the Verses in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25? Please recall the 'golden rule' was already presented in the OT Bible as well; as per the original post observation.

The golden rule is a rule. It's part of the law just like the offensive laws on slavery. They are reconciled insofar as they share a common intent and purpose: to serve life. Now I know how hard that can be to process, and how much of an affront it is to our modern sensibilities, but we have to understand that Israel was a fallen people living in a fallen world (chosen or not, they were far from being a light to the nations at this point!).

So consider pharaoh as an interesting parallel. You'd think Israel would know better given its history of oppression. But no, they don't, and instead they embrace the fallen practice of enslaving people. But just like with pharaoh, we should recognize that if God came on too strong in taking away Israel's slaves, Israel's heart would similarly harden.. Hence laws are crafted to give some rights and consideration to slaves given where Israel is in its moral development (again, to serve life, same as the golden rule, even if a compromise position).

As such, we should consider such laws (golden rule included) as incremental to this deeper intent and purpose. Not as the final word on the matter.

Christianity is a slave morality (thanks Nietzsche), but as such it also calls masters to become slaves (/servants). For them it is hardest.

I'm speaking about the Bible's instructions for (human) slave masters to own (humans) slaves as property. You are trying to change the subject.

Not trying to change the subject. You asked if the same slave-master relationship holds once slavery is transformed into servanthood. The answer was a direct no: masters too should become servants (/slaves) as the current order gets turned on its head.

If not, I would like to know where Jesus abolishes the instructions given in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25? Seems He only instead reinforces the act of a "human master/human slave" relationship -- (as already identified in the OP).

No, he doesn't reinforce it. Per above, he flips the order on its head. Those who serve the lowest among us are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Those who are the so-called greatest now will struggle to make it through.

This topic is not about what happens to you, after death. This topic is about how the Bible gives instruction for (human) slave masters to own (human) slaves.

Who is talking about what happens after death? The kingdom of heaven isn't some afterlife realm. And flipping the current order on its head is a direct answer to your question. See 1 Corinthians 1:28 for example:

"God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."

This is a statement of revolution in the same vein as when Jesus says re: the greatest disciple: “If you want the place of honor, you must become a slave and serve others!” (Mark 9:35)

[1213]

The Bible condones slavery practices....

I think also modern world condones it. Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave.

...At best, this instruction pertains to Hebrews alone. What if you are not Hebrew? Then again brush up on Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 for further instruction.

If Hebrews would have lived by the rules, I think all slaves would be Hebrew, because:

He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner who is not of your seed. He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.”
Gen. 17:12-14

[Miles]

The Bible condones slavery practices....

I think also modern world condones it. Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave.

Not at all because everyone has the choice not to participate in taxed activities. So instead of essentially redefining terms how about simply acknowledging the fact that the Bible does indeed condone slavery as the word's root, "slave" is commonly understood.

slave
/slāv/
noun
noun: slave; plural noun: slaves
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

.

[POI]

You can beat them.

DOES THE BIBLE SAY YOU "MAY BEAT YOUR SLAVES"?


Absolutely not; those words"You may beat your slave" "You have the right to BEAT your slave" are not in the Hebrew bible. Those that conclude such an inference are ignoring both the context and the principles of the Mosaic law.

Here is what the Bible instructs, (again):

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." (Ex. 21:20-21)

Hence, the writer is telling the reader that if the slave is beaten, and they recover, they are NOT to be punished. This means that if the slave master wishes to beat their slave, the slave master is not to be punished for doing so. Hence, he (can and/or may) beat his slave(s); as long as they do no die immediately, or loose eye(s) and/or teeth.

As stated before, for which you did not respond, this is likely why it was customary to beat your slave from the backside. No harm or no foul is deemed by the 'almighty'. Otherwise, the 'almighty' would instruct some type of punishment; like He does for the (3) aforementioned outcomes.

[POI]

In the eye's of God, no crime was then committed.

LEVITICUS 19:18 b - Aramaic Bible in Plain English

.... love your fellow man as yourself. I AM LORD JEHOVAH.

I already addressed this passage in the OP (i.e.):

"3) Please remember the 'golden rule' was already expressed in the OT (i.e.) "you shall love your neighbor as yourself"(Lev. 19:18). Either never speak about the topic of slavery at all, or, tell the Bible readers that slavery is 'wrong'. Instead, the OT already instructs on how you may obtain slaves, how you may beat your slaves, and informs the reader that the slave master can own the slave for life, and also treat them as their property for life. The NT then merely reinforces such OT instruction."

So you see, the OT had no problem instructing allowances for lifetime slavery, as deemed property/money. If the goal was to "love your fellow man as yourself," then maybe God was speaking about 'free men' alone? Seems there exists a differing set of rules for (the free verses the enslaved)?.?.?.?

This appears evident, as you read through Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 especially....

[POI]

Why didn't Jesus just abolish slavery practices, or never mention slavery at all? Seems rather confusing, to have left what He left in the NT Bible....?

Slavery is a major concern of Jesus' ministry, it just goes by a different name: servanthood. That's what Jesus identifies as: a servant. So he doesn't abolish it because why would he abolish what he is and calls us to be?

Rather than abolishing slavery he would transform it into servanthood.

speaking about the sanction
Interesting take... Are some of these now newly defined 'servants' still to be kept for life, as property, and beaten with virtual impunity, by their masters; or not?

No, that doesn't square at all with the idea of love your neighbor and servanthood.

So how do you reconcile the 'golden rule' with the Verses in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25? Please recall the 'golden rule' was already presented in the OT Bible as well; as per the original post observation.

The golden rule is a rule. It's part of the law just like the offensive laws on slavery. They are reconciled insofar as they share a common intent and purpose: to serve life. Now I know how hard that can be to process, and how much of an affront it is to our modern sensibilities, but we have to understand that Israel was a fallen people living in a fallen world (chosen or not, they were far from being a light to the nations at this point!).

So consider pharaoh as an interesting parallel. You'd think Israel would know better given its history of oppression. But no, they don't, and instead they embrace the fallen practice of enslaving people. But just like with pharaoh, we should recognize that if God came on too strong in taking away Israel's slaves, Israel's heart would similarly harden.. Hence laws are crafted to give some rights and consideration to slaves given where Israel is in its moral development (again, to serve life, same as the golden rule, even if a compromise position).

As such, we should consider such laws (golden rule included) as incremental to this deeper intent and purpose. Not as the final word on the matter.

"God" had no problem laying down the law in the OT. He issued 613 laws/rules. Seems quite suspect to suggest that the topic of 'slavery' needed to be handled in steps, and/or with 'kid-gloves', and/or to be instructed progressively. As others have stated, I suggest such 'slavery' allowances were the instructions of men, and men alone. Just like every other claimed holy book(s). To argue for any alternative conclusion requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics, quite frankly. Sorry.

[POI]

The Bible condones slavery practices....

I think also modern world condones it. Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave.

You are trying to severely muddy the waters here... Paying taxes (vs) being instructed as a slave master's property/money, for life, for which the master can beat their slave with impunity; is HARDLY comparable.

...At best, this instruction pertains to Hebrews alone. What if you are not Hebrew? Then again brush up on Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 for further instruction.

If Hebrews would have lived by the rules, I think all slaves would be Hebrew, because:

He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner who is not of your seed. He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.”
Gen. 17:12-14

You did not answer my question.

--> What if you are not Hebrew? I'll answer for you preemptively, to speed things along. You are instructed to be kept for life and treated like property. (i.e.):

“‘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." (Lev. 25:44-46)

[JehovahsWitness]

You can beat them.

DOES THE BIBLE SAY YOU "MAY BEAT YOUR SLAVES"?


Absolutely not; those words"You may beat your slave" "You have the right to BEAT your slave" are not in the Hebrew bible. Those that conclude such an inference are ignoring both the context and the principles of the Mosaic law.

Here is what the Bible instructs, (again):

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." (Ex. 21:20-21)

Hence, the writer is telling the reader that if the slave is beaten, and they recover, they are NOT to be punished.

Post #21

Post #43