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.

[JehovahsWitness]

As long as they remain within the 'God prescribed' limitations, no punishment.

As for "no punishment" I cannot put it and better than you did when faced with repetitous claims...

I never said it wasn't 'an answer'. I stated this response has already been addressed, many times.

As for "no punishment" this response has already been addressed, many times.

... see post 145

See post #43

[JehovahsWitness]

.. But ruffing them up, for not working to the max, is perfectly fine, apparently.

DOES THE HEBREW BIBLE INDICATES THATS "RUFFING [A SLAVE ] UP WAS {QUOTE } "PERFECTLY FINE" {END QUOTE}?

Yes.

No punishment, unless they die immediately or loose teeth/eyes.

No.

The reference only refered to capital punishment .

For more detailed analysis please see post #43 and post #50

[POI]

The reference only refered to capital punishment .[/color][/indent]
For more detailed analysis please see post #43 and post #50

This is wishful thinking. Yet again, God has absolutely no problem ordering the specifics. See below (expanded response of post 142) <i.e.>:

Exodus 21 (alone) has no problem specifying the type of punishment, per "punishable transaction" (i.e.)

17 “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist[d] and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

HOWEVER, in Verse 20-21 and Verses 26-27, notice God makes special caveats for the slave in the master's punishment:

20 “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.

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.


If ANY type of 'punishment' was due, God demonstrates to have absolutely NO problem INSTRUCTING exactly WHAT this 'punishment' would be....

Thus, the slave master is absolved from any "punishment", and has immunity from consequences, as ordered by 'god'. And why? Because the slave is his money/property.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I already responded about Paul. You dismissed that response as 'apologetics 101'. Didn't even bother to discuss it.

I'm pretty sure I already addressed such points... Care to provide the post number of your response? We are almost 150 posts deep and it's becoming hard to keep track. I will then find the corresponding answer(s) given.

Post 80.

This is what you wrote:

these quotes are from Paul, not Christ. Paul was probably speaking from love, trying to keep people safe - not just from those who owned them, but also from the authorities and law of the land. Paul did think it best if people had their freedom, and he protected a (runaway?) slave for a time, and when he had to send that slave back, he made it pretty hard for that owner to justify keeping the man as a slave.

Sounds like your position is that Paul wrote what he thought 'authority' would want to hear?

No.

Can you not think of what might happen via Rome or via slave owners, if slaves decided to just... quit? Christ did not come to start a slave revolt (especially not when He teaches us to become the least, to be servant/slave to all others). And Paul's former name was Saul, not Spartacus.


Paul tells us what he thinks in his letter to Philemon (a slave owner). That freeing Onesimus is the thing Philemon OUGHT to do. Paul says it to the man straight out.

And the other question I asked re: golden rule?

Pretty sure I responded here too. Post number please?

Post 111 quotes it:

If you are following the golden rule, and you do not wish to be enslaved, can you then go out and enslave someone else?

I am asking YOU.

My answer is no.

Then there you go. Christ did speak against enslaving another person. Not against being a slave itself - He, Himself, took the form of a slave and came as one who SERVES, even though He is King of kings, the heir to all God's kingdom. But against enslaving another person against their will.

I would not consider owning slaves; and I do not even believe in a postmortem Jesus

The golden rule is nothing new, and is basic common sense. This rule was floating around long before "Jesus".

A matter of fact, it was instructed in Lev. 19:18. And in the very same Book (Leviticus), chattel slavery was ALSO instructed, via Leviticus 25:44-46. So what is your point exactly?

It is a simple point. That even you know that you cannot enslave someone if you do not wish to be enslaved (according to the golden rule).

Christ emphasized the golden rule. Christians listen to Christ.

It might have been hard for some to grasp at first, especially since slavery was a common practice, and legal ... just as it was also hard for some to grasp that Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean, that they were invited into the new covenant as well. Just because something was permitted or forbidden to Israel (via the old covenant) does not mean that it remained that way in the new covenant.

You keep bringing up the old law, but that - as the word 'old' suggests - is past (and it was only ever between God and Israel, to begin with). Now - if one is in Christ, in the new covenant - then one listens to Christ, and the law of the new covenant - the one that is written upon the hearts of those IN the new covenant - is love. Love is the law from the beginning, from God.

The following has not been answered yet either (since I clarified it), post 117:

The 'free man' is to serve ALL OTHER PEOPLE. The 'free man' is to make himself a LEAST ONE among MEN. (it is a given that the free man is lesser than God and Christ, but Christ said that we are to make ourselves LEAST, be slaves to OTHERS).

If the free man (who is a slave of Christ and God) is to make himself LEAST among men and to serve all other people, WHO is left for him to enslave? He is SERVANT to all.

Post 119:

If

....

Why can you not just answer the question?

If a true believer would not have slaves, then why have passages which places believers as slave masters?

Perhaps because that was their position when they first learned of and started believing in Christ?

Nowhere does the passage state for believers to not own (slaves)?

But Paul does say this in his letter to Philemon (a believer who owns slaves).


Peace to you.

[POI]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I already responded about Paul. You dismissed that response as 'apologetics 101'. Didn't even bother to discuss it.

I'm pretty sure I already addressed such points... Care to provide the post number of your response? We are almost 150 posts deep and it's becoming hard to keep track. I will then find the corresponding answer(s) given.

Post 80.

This is what you wrote:

these quotes are from Paul, not Christ. Paul was probably speaking from love, trying to keep people safe - not just from those who owned them, but also from the authorities and law of the land. Paul did think it best if people had their freedom, and he protected a (runaway?) slave for a time, and when he had to send that slave back, he made it pretty hard for that owner to justify keeping the man as a slave.

Sounds like your position is that Paul wrote what he thought 'authority' would want to hear?

No.

Can you not think of what might happen via Rome or via slave owners, if slaves decided to just... quit? Christ did not come to start a slave revolt (especially not when He teaches us to become the least, to be servant/slave to all others). And Paul's former name was Saul, not Spartacus.

Paul tells us what he thinks in his letter to Philemon (a slave owner). That freeing Onesimus is the thing Philemon OUGHT to do. Paul says it to the man straight out.

Okay. You also stated Jesus never spoke about 'slavery' in one of your posts. And yet, He spoke against many many many topics, for which many would still ignore/other. If the "golden rule" was all, then Jesus would be merely wasting His breath to mention all the other alleged 'sin', in detail It would ALL go without saying, and/or be redundant/double-speak --- (i.e.) lying, cheating, theft, etc etc etc etc. They all infringe upon the 'golden rule'. He leaves out the huge topic of "slavery", or at least leaves it ambiguous. Why?

And about Saul/Paul, in that passage, he seems to then disagree with YHWH? Nowhere does YHWH instruct to set all 'slaves' free. YHWH instead instructs how to 'keep and regulate' them. And nowhere, in the OT or the NT, is slavery abolished by YHWH/Jesus. The 'best' you can now offer, is that Paul disagrees with "divine authority".

Hence, one could perfectly well justify "slavery" practices now, because of the Bible.

Everything there-after would be redundant to again respond

[TRANSPONDER]

It isn't enough. Blanket 'Love' still leaves too much open to question. 'Love' still allows Jesus to snap and snarl at those with whom he disagrees, and even get a bit violent. It can't be left to make it clear about divorce; Jesus has to explain what he thinks the rule should be. The Laws overruled in the sermon on the mount have to be explained; they aren't left for others, taking 'Love' as the touchstone, to work it out. Slavery, endorsed by Rules in Leviticus, ought to be addressed if Jesus knew that it was wrong. It is not mentioned, not even when the Centurion asks Jesus to heal his slave.

Slavery was a thing in Paul's time, in Christian Rome, so it appears, and in Byzantium and for all I can tell, right up to the 18th century and later, of course. One has to ask why, if God knew that slavery would be such a contentious issue, He didn't make it clear from the start that God - believers should not own slaves; it was wrong. He should know that people would not conclude this for themselves just because of preaching 'Love'.

Your excuse may do for believers, but it will not do for those who have doubt and question about whether the Bible could really reflect the views and wishes of a God, rather than the views and opinion of men of that time.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I already responded about Paul. You dismissed that response as 'apologetics 101'. Didn't even bother to discuss it.

I'm pretty sure I already addressed such points... Care to provide the post number of your response? We are almost 150 posts deep and it's becoming hard to keep track. I will then find the corresponding answer(s) given.

Post 80.

This is what you wrote:

these quotes are from Paul, not Christ. Paul was probably speaking from love, trying to keep people safe - not just from those who owned them, but also from the authorities and law of the land. Paul did think it best if people had their freedom, and he protected a (runaway?) slave for a time, and when he had to send that slave back, he made it pretty hard for that owner to justify keeping the man as a slave.

Sounds like your position is that Paul wrote what he thought 'authority' would want to hear?

No.

Can you not think of what might happen via Rome or via slave owners, if slaves decided to just... quit? Christ did not come to start a slave revolt (especially not when He teaches us to become the least, to be servant/slave to all others). And Paul's former name was Saul, not Spartacus.

Paul tells us what he thinks in his letter to Philemon (a slave owner). That freeing Onesimus is the thing Philemon OUGHT to do. Paul says it to the man straight out.

Okay. You also stated Jesus never spoke about 'slavery' in one of your posts.

I don't think I said that.

And yet, He spoke against many many many topics, for which many would still ignore/other. If the "golden rule" was all,

It is enough, as even your answer demonstrates, but Christ said much more than just the golden rule (as presented in previous posts) which - when followed to a natural and logical conclusion - do speak against enslaving another person.

And about Saul/Paul, in that passage, he seems to then disagree with YHWH? Nowhere does YHWH instruct to set all 'slaves' free.

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break EVERY yoke?


Also, God desires mercy (not sacrifice). Also, there is no law against love. So if Paul (or anyone else) is acting out of love, then Paul (or anyone else) is not acting against God. Even IF Paul (or another person) was mistaken (and therefore sinned), but was truly acting from love, well... see Proverbs 10:12 and 1Peter 4:8.

Everything there-after would be redundant to again respond

So that one question that no one ever answers, is going to go unanswered again?


Peace again to you.

[theophile]

Both you and Transponder keep sidestepping the point. And I don't know how to put it any clearer than Tam or I already have:

Slavery becomes servanthood. That is Christianity in a nutshell: everyone is meant to be a servant (/slave).

There certainly is some 'sidestepping' going on here. At best, your argument looks to be as follows:

God>Jesus>free man>free woman>slaves

Umm, no.

God>humankind is what I'm saying, where all humankind is in the image of God / Christ. Even Jesus is just a figurehead of the body of Christ (if you will) which we are all called to join, and which is much greater than Jesus (/one person) but all equally Christ. (As Paul eloquently describes somewhere.)

What you're saying here is the state of the world that the bible / Christian servanthood is trying to correct. It is a fitting description of a fallen world. Of our world today even in a lot of respects. (You could layer on things like plants and animals too in this model.)

Meaning - "Sure, we are all (slaves); except God of course."

What is God to even speak of God being enslaved or not? But sure, I get your drift.

But you still have to reconcile that the Bible defines a specific form of 'slavery' in the OT. The non-Israelite human slave is the human master's property, for which can be beaten with virtual impunity for life. Sure, you might be a 'slave' to something; like paying taxes, answering to your boss at work, or even God, but I doubt you are okay with the kind of (slavery) mentioned specifically in the OT. Hence, the (apologetics 101 spin) we now see from some Christians, to completely muddy the waters. For which, BTW, Jesus never cares to then abolish

Don't confuse the slavery spoken of in the law (whether chattel slavery or indentured servitude) with Christian servanthood. And I doubt anyone here is 'okay' with either of these or anything like it. Per above, that is part of a fallen world. Of pharaoh for example and Israel too. That is not what God or Christian servanthood wants or is in anyway condoning of. It has no place in the end game.

If the issue is the law, which I get, then you have to understand that the law too is in the context of a fallen world. That is the only reason it exists in the first place: to get Israel on track. Because like other nations Israel too keeps slaves and does other things we rightly abhor (like animal sacrifices and whatnot). There is a moral development going on here -- you have to recognize that (you can't just call it 'mental gymnastics' like you did before...).

The moral issue Jesus tries to correct (to put it another way) is that Israel became obsessive with the law, and saw it as the path to salvation. His point is, it is not. Hence why I am so dismissive of the law's condoning of slavery. It was in every sense of the word an incremental step and effort to move Israel in the right direction (i.e., to at least give rights to the slaves they insist on keeping). It too has no place in the end game (including its condoning of slavery).

Let me cut to the chase.... If God instructed that humans owning other humans was an abomination/wrong/other, like He apparently has no problem doing in many other given instructions, about MANY other topics, then I certainly would NOT be posting how Christians have to rationalize owning slaves.

But guess what? The OT provides a guide to slavery, via Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. You know it, I know it. Case/point... Let's play devil's advocate... The God, for which you believe in, exists. Okay, He issues Commandments. All-the-while, knowing they are all going to be broken anyways. And yet, He still issues them. However, when it comes to the topic of 'slavery', instead of simply issuing another 'thou shall not' Command, He offers a guide/instruction manual --- which includes virtual impunity for beating them, and also making them property for life.

How does this fare in the 'end game'?

The law is not a 'guide/instruction manual' but a control (every law is a 'thou shall not' on some level). So stop regarding the law in positive terms -- we really shouldn't. It's very reason for existing is to keep us in line, which means something is out of line, and needs regulation to help get it back on track. In this case it's Israel, who spends its time killing, stealing, cheating, and taking slaves...

And if you accept that, then what it means is that the law is highly contextualized to Israel at the time the law was given (versus what you seem to be suggesting as a guide / instruction for all people in all times and places). As such we have to strongly question the law outside that context -- it doesn't necessarily apply. (Which is why we see Jesus, time and again, outright breaking the law...)

That said, if you want the reason why there's not an unambiguous 'thou shall not keep slaves' in the OT, then that too is dependent on Israel at the time the law is given. It's a question of where Israel was at the time, and what controls Israel was willing to take. It's a question of how hard God could be with Israel before causing Israel to clench up, like pharaoh, and harden its heart. (And to fall even further away from God.)

So to answer your question, that is how a Christian rationalizes the laws on slavery: they were never meant to be the final word on the matter. They were only the words that were necessary at the time, to keep Israel in line, but also preventing Israel from falling even further astray.

(As to why Jesus never condemns slavery down the line I would suggest again because he transforms it into Christian servanthood.)

[POI]

(YOU) It is enough, as even your answer demonstrates, but Christ said much more than just the golden rule (as presented in previous posts) which - when followed to a natural and logical conclusion - do speak against enslaving another person.

(ME) No. It is not enough And 'logic' is not what is required, it is 'faith/belief'. Too much logic makes the Bible a complete mess, at best. Case/point, why no one will touch one of my other topics with a 10-foot-pole - about "how one reaches salvation?" Okay, back on topic....

As I have alluded to, time and time again now, 'Slavery" is a huge topic. One in which, if Jesus is really as wise as everyone claims Him to be, would know that this topic would run amuck for centuries/longer, unfettered and completely lawful. All He would need to say is, (paraphrased) -- "don't ever own slaves, it is an abomination" Viola, no atheist could ever broach this topic

(YOU)
“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break EVERY yoke?

(ME) Nice reach attempt. Again, as I told "JW", God has no problem with clarity. When YHWH mentions a topic, He has not problem in specifying. "Oppressed" and "break every yolk" could mean many things. Again, ambiguity.... But when it comes to the matters of 'slavery', here is what He has to say specifically:

Exodus 21:

20 “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.

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Leviticus 25:

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.

(YOU) Also, God desires mercy (not sacrifice). Also, there is no law against love. So if Paul (or anyone else) is acting out of love, then Paul (or anyone else) is not acting against God. Even IF Paul (or another person) was mistaken (and therefore sinned), but was truly acting from love, well... see Proverbs 10:12 and 1Peter 4:8.

(ME) So "can make them slaves for life", equals love. Got it.

[tam]

Peace to you,

It isn't enough. Blanket 'Love' still leaves too much open to question.

It can. Some people need a direct law and rule (which is why some do better in high control religion), because they do not know how to live FREE. But we are called to be FREE. If one is in the new covenant, then the law - love - is written upon their hearts. (there are also non-Christians who do - by nature/NATURALLY - the requirements of the law/love).

'Love' still allows Jesus to snap and snarl at those with whom he disagrees, and even get a bit violent.

Are you sure you're not projecting that upon Him?

Love (and zeal) had him drive out robbers and thieves from His Father's house. I can totally understand that. If you were to find such people in your father's house (assuming you love and respect your father) doing corrupt things against your father and his house, stealing from those your father loves and protects, disrespecting your father in his own house, you might drive those people out yourself.

It can't be left to make it clear about divorce; Jesus has to explain what he thinks the rule should be.

He does not explain what the rule should be. He explains what the TRUTH is, and has been from the beginning. He does not tell them they cannot do what Moses said. He explains the consequence of them doing what Moses said. He also explains that the law they were given by Moses previously was due to their hard hearts (an allowance for them). He also explains this because someone specifically ASKED about marriage and divorce. Just as someone ASKED what he thought about stoning an adulteress (according to the law).

The Laws overruled in the sermon on the mount have to be explained; they aren't left for others, taking 'Love' as the touchstone, to work it out.

Not sure what laws you are referring to here, sorry. But Christ did leave people to work things on their own, to come to a right conclusion, often asking questions that cause another person to then THINK about it. That's better than just following a rule, because then it is upon your heart, your conscience, you understand it WITHIN.

Your excuse may do for believers,

Well the thread is asking about a Christian's position on the matter.

The OP (1213 was it?) said the same things I and others have said. No, you cannot enslave another person if you do not wish to be enslaved. Yes, God desires for every yoke to be broken. Yes, we are to make OURSELVES least ones, servants/slaves to one another (Christ and God first). Yes, love would set someone free who wishes to be free. Yes, love SERVES others. Yes, we who are in Christ are all brothers (and even in the law, Israel was not permitted to buy slaves from among themselves).... and we are to be servants of one another and others.

(As for the Centurion, maybe the Centurion loved his slave (certainly enough to come and ask for him to be healed), and the slave loved the Centurion. Maybe for them it was just a position in a household. Not something to be abused. The Centurion did not ask if he should own slaves according to the law, he asked that his slave be healed. Showing both love AND FAITH. As long as both of those things are present, anything more that needs to be worked out would be worked out.)

but it will not do for those who have doubt and question about whether the Bible could really reflect the views and wishes of a God, rather than the views and opinion of men of that time.

It doesn't all reflect the views and wishes of God, especially considering that some laws were given as an allowance for what people were able/willing to do and accept. Obviously it is an opinion of man that he should be able to divorce his wife for any and every reason, even if she was faithful to him the entire time. Even though he is supposed to care for her for her entire life, love her, support her. Moses made it so that such men had to at least give their wives a certificate of divorce, which frees her up to remarry if she so chooses. The best of a bad situation, so to speak.

If you want to know the views and wishes of God, then you have to look at Christ. He - not the bible - is the Truth and Image and Word of God. God is as Christ reveals Him to be.

Peace again.