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.

[1213]

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.

I don't see any meaningful difference.

...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)

I think the Gen. 17:12-14 means they all should have become Israelites. But, if you disagree with that, please explain what do you think Gen. 17:12-14 means in practice? When person is circumcised, is he not a Jew/Israelite?

Also, you seem to think that is was ok to beat the slaves, if that is so, why would it be said "not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly"?

[1213]

Not at all because everyone has the choice not to participate in taxed activities. ...

In theory yes, but in practice it would mean that one would be banished from where he lives to some remote location without anything. One could as well say the same about ancient slavery, they could have escaped, or stop eating or doing anything. I think your argument is therefore in this case not reasonable, sorry.

[TRANSPONDER]

It surely is water - muddying, equivocation and misdirection to try to pretend that because paying taxes makes slaves of us all, it means that there really is no slavery and therefore the Bible is not advocating slavery. We all know, in the context of current or modern ethics what slavery is and that participation in social groups is not the same as slavery. I would hate to be in the position of someone who is effectively trying to argue that paying for services (whether or not proper services are actually provided ) makes slave of us all, quite apart from the (I suppose) arguing that slavery (ownership of persons as property) is ok. If that is what being a Christian makes people do, I thank Nongod every day that I am not one.

[TRANSPONDER]

Not at all because everyone has the choice not to participate in taxed activities. ...

In theory yes, but in practice it would mean that one would be banished from where he lives to some remote location without anything. One could as well say the same about ancient slavery, they could have escaped, or stop eating or doing anything. I think your argument is therefore in this case not reasonable, sorry.

What is this nonsense? In any country where people aren't made slaves as a populace, one has the option (in principle) to move somewhere else, get another job and house. Slavery means that you have no such right. It is true that opting out of social structure can leave people without resources. But that is a choice that some people make. They can opt out. A slave can't. They are property. This is typical of Apologetics efforts to make everything mean something else so anything can be made to mean whatever the apologist wants,

"The words of this wizard stand on their heads." (Gimli)

[Miles]

Not at all because everyone has the choice not to participate in taxed activities. ...

In theory yes, but in practice it would mean that one would be banished from where he lives to some remote location without anything.[

Who, besides yourself, claims such a thing. IOW, what's your source of information that this happens to anyone who chooses "not to participate in taxed activities"?

One could as well say the same about ancient slavery, they could have escaped, or stop eating or doing anything. I think your argument is therefore in this case not reasonable, sorry.

Escape, yes, but escaping plays no part in simply choosing not to participate. Please stay focused. Thank you.



.

[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.

"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.

No, there is an alternative conclusion. The law laid down in the OT is effectively dismissed (yet somehow fulfilled) by Jesus in the NT. Your argument here says nothing to that. It offers no explanation or even consideration of this important fact in its conclusion. So sorry, we can't just cherry pick from the text and ignore the rest, simply on the basis of the cultural fact that human beings wrote the bible. That says nothing about the biblically prescribed status of the law, and whether we are to obey it or not.

To say otherwise is to dumb down Jesus and avoid thinking through the intricacies of his teachings and example. And what it means for the very important question you raise here on slavery.

[TRANSPONDER]

We have done this. Yes, The NT does override the OT (unless Jesus specifically endorses some OT -thing) but nowhere does he override the laws on slavery, even when he gets the chance to comment. You'd think while overriding various OT rules in the sermon on the mount, he'd mention slavery and override that, but not a word. Thus the conclusion is that Jesus (or rather, those who wrote the material put into Jesus' mouth) were fine with slavery.

[JehovahsWitness]

.

I know you won't try to pull "It doesn't use those exact words. You are too honest other than to admit that it effectively says that you can beat your slave so long as they don't die within a day or two. ..

IS THE FACT THAT UNINTENSIONAL MANSLAUGHTER WAS NOT PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH A DE FACTO INSTRUCTION/PERMISSION TO BEAT ONES SLAVE WITHIN AN INCH OF THEIR LIVES?

No, this is like suggesting, the fact that one does not usually do prison time for jaywalking (unless perhaps one has caused an accident) should be taken as a de fact instruction to jaywalk. Or that since getting drink and falling out of your window is not a criminal offense, the government is {quote} "effectively" saying : "Get drink and fall out of your window, we have no problem with it"

Not legislating for something that is covered by already existing directives and/or is not enforceable or encroaches on an individual's personal freedom, should not reasonably be considered permission/condonation or a de facto instruction to do that thing.

The Mosaic Law already prohibited unloving behaviour; not demanding the most severe of penalties if premeditation and intent could not be legally established does not equates to permission to disregard already existing law and directives and is certainly ONT "effectively" approving doing that thing.

ARGUMENTS FROM SILENCE

Did God order absolute immunity for slavebeaters?
viewtopic.php?p=1079551#p1079551

Can an argument from silence be made or slavebeaters?
viewtopic.php?p=1079578#p1079578

Is NOT demanding the death penalty for all beatings of slave "effectively" de facto permission to beat them?
viewtopic.php?p=1078846#p1078846

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[theophile]

We have done this. Yes, The NT does override the OT (unless Jesus specifically endorses some OT -thing) but nowhere does he override the laws on slavery, even when he gets the chance to comment. You'd think while overriding various OT rules in the sermon on the mount, he'd mention slavery and override that, but not a word. Thus the conclusion is that Jesus (or rather, those who wrote the material put into Jesus' mouth) were fine with slavery.

The point is that all the law is dismissed. The laws on slavery included.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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):

The words, teachings and example that Christ gave us speak against enslavement of another person.

Christ taught (as theophile mentioned earlier in the thread) that we (Christians) are to BECOME least ones, to SERVE. That doesn't leave room for enslaving other persons. Christ Himself came to serve, and He is the Son of God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the heir to all God's kingdom.... yet He came as one who serves, setting that example for us, and we are meant to be following Him. He put His Father's will above His own will. He enslaved no one. The 'golden rule' that He emphasized leaves no room for one person to enslave another person against their will (even in the OT, God said that He wanted men to break EVERY yoke... Isaiah 58:6). If a person chooses to use their freedom to make themselves a least one, a servant, a slave, then that is their choice. But even of those Christ calls, we can choose to answer that call and come (making ourselves least ones, servants, slaves even of Christ and of God - as the apostles also did), or we can reject that call. God and His Son want those who WANT to serve. Why would they want unwilling servants?

This serving comes from love. From Christ - love for His Father (and also for those He and His Father loves). From us - love for Christ, for God, for one another.

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.

As bjs mentioned, 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.

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

But something like that would most likely only stand a chance of working with a disciple of Christ because they are meant to have the same Teacher.

Someone who is not a disciple of Christ is not going to care what Christ said about these things.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy