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.

[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.

I don't see any meaningful difference.

If you do not see a difference between "paying taxes" (vs) "chattel slavery", then no one can help you; not even "God"

...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"?

(Again) 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.

References:

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. Lev 25:44-46

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. Exodus 21:20-21

[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.

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.

Well, "Transponder" beat me to the punch here, via post #77....

But to add, again, God apparently issued 613 laws/rules. Many of which are 'thou shall NOT" commands. And yet, God did not feel the same with slavery. Hmm?

[POI]

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

No they don't. Not once, does Jesus speak against "slavery" practices.

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

(The format got jacked. So I presented your statements, and my rebuttals below)

(YOU) 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.

(ME) Then you too are trying to muddy the waters, like "1213" in post #81. "Slavery", as instructed in the Bible, allowed for the slave master to own slaves, for life, as property. Beatings were absolved from punishment, provided they did not die immediately or have their eyes/teeth removed.

(YOU) As bjs mentioned, these quotes are from Paul, not Christ.

(ME) And as I asked "bjs1" (twice), for which he failed to acknowledge or answer thus far, did Jesus disagree with Paul?

(YOU) Paul was probably....

(ME) Everything after this is apologetics 101.

(YOU) 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.

(ME) Or could it be that, because you believe this God truly exists, you must find a way to reconcile topics for which you do not agree with 'morally" (i.e.) - the fact that the Bible condones 'slavery'?

[tam]

Peace to you,

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

No they don't. Not once, does Jesus speak against "slavery" practices.

Of course they do. You just seem to want a direct 'do not enslave people', in those exact words.

A - Christ did not enslave anyone. Anyone who followed and served Him did so willingly, from love (then and now). Just as He also served us, just as He came TO serve (His words: Matt 20:26-28). That is the example that He set for us to follow, therefore, these are examples that speaks against enslaving others. You cannot enslave someone and be their servant at the same time.

B - Christ came to set us free. He did not come to set us free so that we could then take away others' freedom. That's just dumb.

C - If you do not wish to be enslaved, you cannot enslave others. Simple. Golden rule.

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

(The format got jacked. So I presented your statements, and my rebuttals below)

(YOU) 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.

(ME) Then you too are trying to muddy the waters, like "1213" in post #81. "Slavery", as instructed in the Bible, allowed for the slave master to own slaves, for life, as property. Beatings were absolved from punishment, provided they did not die immediately or have their eyes/teeth removed.

What does that have to do with whether or not a Christian can own slaves?

(please see also Isaiah 58, where God desires people to break EVERY yoke; and perhaps apply some reasoning to where Moses gave a law as an allowance for the hard hearts of the people, but that it was not that way from the beginning. Matt 19:8)

(YOU) As bjs mentioned, these quotes are from Paul, not Christ.

(ME) And as I asked "bjs1" (twice), for which he failed to acknowledge or answer thus far, did Jesus disagree with Paul?

He could have. But this assumes that Paul was all for slavery, when clearly, he was not (as per the passages quoted in the previous post).

(YOU) Paul was probably....

(ME) Everything after this is apologetics 101.

Seems to be some things you might need to consider, unless of course you are suggesting that you know exactly what Paul was thinking and why he wrote about such things? Do you?

(YOU) 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.

(ME) Or could it be that, because you believe this God truly exists, you must find a way to reconcile topics for which you do not agree with 'morally" (i.e.) - the fact that the Bible condones 'slavery'?

Nice deflection (and it doesn't have anything to do with what I was referring to, and that feels REALLY familiar, POI), but this is not an issue for me. At all. A Christian follows Christ. Simple. For whatever reason slavery was permitted (perhaps to save lives - being such a harsh way of life in that time and land; perhaps a way of surviving when otherwise there might just be massacre or starvation; perhaps a means of being part of a great household - for those who might choose it for themselves or for their children - no matter what your position; because the hearts of the people were too hard to do better...), that has no bearing on what a Christian is to do.

And while there was once a barrier between gentiles and Israel (where Israel had been permitted to take slaves from other nations), that barrier has been torn down in Christ. Love your neighbor as yourself and love also your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you. Bless those who curse you. There is no room for enslavement in this (or the rest that has already been mentioned).



Peace again to you.

[Miles]

Peace to you,

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

No they don't. Not once, does Jesus speak against "slavery" practices.

Of course they do. You just seem to want a direct 'do not enslave people', in those exact words.

Curious: what do you consider an indirect "do not enslave people" remark by Jesus?

.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

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

No they don't. Not once, does Jesus speak against "slavery" practices.

Of course they do. You just seem to want a direct 'do not enslave people', in those exact words.

Curious: what do you consider an indirect "do not enslave people" remark by Jesus?

.

All the stuff I already wrote in the last couple of posts.

Peace again.

[Willum]

It is very simple:

They believe in the past they were "chosen" to be masters.
They believe they are too good for God to ever let them be slaves.
They can own slaves, whom they make Christian, with insufferable irony...

[POI]

Peace to you,

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

No they don't. Not once, does Jesus speak against "slavery" practices.

Of course they do. You just seem to want a direct 'do not enslave people', in those exact words.

Not in any words. That's the problem. Both the OT and the NT speaks about slavery.

A - Christ did not enslave anyone. Anyone who followed and served Him did so willingly, from love (then and now). Just as He also served us, just as He came TO serve (His words: Matt 20:26-28). That is the example that He set for us to follow, therefore, these are examples that speaks against enslaving others. You cannot enslave someone and be their servant at the same time.

B - Christ came to set us free. He did not come to set us free so that we could then take away others' freedom. That's just dumb.

C - If you do not wish to be enslaved, you cannot enslave others. Simple. Golden rule.

A - As I've told others, the Bible instructs how (human) masters may have (human) slaves.

B - And yet, He says nothing about abolishing slavery practices which was well established in the OT, and then reinforced in the NT.

C - False. Please read Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. This has already been addressed, ad nauseam. Further, the 'golden rule' was already established in Leviticus, And yet, instruction for slavery, (via Ex. 21 and Lev. 25), was still in place.

(YOU) As bjs mentioned, these quotes are from Paul, not Christ.

(ME) And as I asked "bjs1" (twice), for which he failed to acknowledge or answer thus far, did Jesus disagree with Paul?

He could have.

Wait a minute? What?

(YOU) Paul was probably....

(ME) Everything after this is apologetics 101.

Seems to be some things you might need to consider, unless of course you are suggesting that you know exactly what Paul was thinking and why he wrote about such things? Do you?

Well, since this topic is about slavery, I again have to ask... If Paul was against human masters owning human slaves, then why do we have NT Verses which do not abolish such instruction, as given in Ex. 21 and Lev. 25. And instead, there exists Verses which continue to endorse such practices?

(YOU) 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.

(ME) Or could it be that, because you believe this God truly exists, you must find a way to reconcile topics for which you do not agree with 'morally" (i.e.) - the fact that the Bible condones 'slavery'?

Nice deflection (and it doesn't have anything to do with what I was referring to, and that feels REALLY familiar, POI), but this is not an issue for me. At all. A Christian follows Christ. Simple.

No. It is not a 'deflection'. I believe this observation cuts to the core of your given responses. You believe He is real. Hence, when you are presented with Verse, which seems to go against your own personal moral sensibilities, out comes the 'justification'.

Well, I will admit to you, that if I too thought such an agent truly existed, I too might certainly feel forced to reconcile/rationalize such passages.

For whatever reason slavery was permitted (perhaps to save lives - being such a harsh way of life in that time and land; perhaps a way of surviving when otherwise there might just be massacre or starvation; perhaps a means of being part of a great household - for those who might choose it for themselves or for their children - no matter what your position; because the hearts of the people were too hard to do better...), that has no bearing on what a Christian is to do.

And while there was once a barrier between gentiles and Israel (where Israel had been permitted to take slaves from other nations), that barrier has been torn down in Christ. Love your neighbor as yourself and love also your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you. Bless those who curse you. There is no room for enslavement in this (or the rest that has already been mentioned).

Again, the "golden rule" was already in place in Leviticus 19:18. And yet, a guide to slavery was instructed to followers.

So as a Christian, please demonstrate why Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, (which granted much impunity for beatings as well as being assigned as property for life), are no longer applicable now?

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

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

No they don't. Not once, does Jesus speak against "slavery" practices.

Of course they do. You just seem to want a direct 'do not enslave people', in those exact words.

Curious: what do you consider an indirect "do not enslave people" remark by Jesus?

.

..Good question.

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

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

No they don't. Not once, does Jesus speak against "slavery" practices.

Of course they do. You just seem to want a direct 'do not enslave people', in those exact words.

Curious: what do you consider an indirect "do not enslave people" remark by Jesus?

.

All the stuff I already wrote in the last couple of posts.

Peace again.

I see nothing there that speaks out against slavery specifically. When slavery is an institution and moreover endorsed by the Torah having rules for treating slaves, you need more than 'be nice' to address the point. Bear in mind that (in Christian view) Paul got his Line from the disciples who got it from Jesus, supposedly. Since Paul said 'slaves, obey your masters' and implied that this was God's will, I'd say that settles the matter as to what Jesus' view on slavery was.

[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.

Well, "Transponder" beat me to the punch here, via post #77....

But to add, again, God apparently issued 613 laws/rules. Many of which are 'thou shall NOT" commands. And yet, God did not feel the same with slavery. Hmm?

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).

So no more masters with whips -- they are to become slaves too! No more treating people as personal property -- the very idea of personal property gets dismantled (since it all belongs to God)...

Honestly, what room do you see left here for the kind of slavery you're talking about?

I raised Nietzsche before because he is instructive on the matter. He was an atheist who brought a direct argument against this core teaching of Christianity (read his Genealogy of Morals if you haven't). He calls out Christianity for being a slave morality, for calling everyone to weakness (versus strength). For sucking the vigor and lifeblood - the master instinct - from humanity if you will.

That is a valid line of attack, since it actually hits the truth of the matter. Cherry-picking a couple OT verses and arbitrarily filling in the blanks of what isn't said (despite what is said) is missing the forest for the trees.