The Biblical Perspective of Slavery

[Red_Tory]

To start off, I am not referring to the concept of Hebrew debt slavery. I would like to address this idea of the enslavement of foreigners in the Old Testament, most notably the book of Leviticus, and then just take a glance at some excerpts from the New Testament, particularly a few verses from Paul's letter to the Ephesians and Galatians.

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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." Leviticus 25:44-46

Unless anyone has some kind of "personal interpretation" they would like to offer, this seems to be an instance where God explicitly condones the slave trade of the ancient world. Contrary to the restrictions placed on the enslavement of fellow Israelites (not slaves, but treated more as "hired hands" to be released after a set period of time), foreign slaves don't seem to be protected by the command of God from abuse and ruthless treatment.

Later, Paul and others in the New Testament write on the topic of slavery and favouritism in the eyes of God. Some of them (especially Paul and Peter) arrive at the conclusion that God is not a "respecter of persons", and that we ourselves should refrain from this behaviour (James 2:1-3, , Ephesians 6:9). According to the writers of the New Testament, it would seem to me, race-based slavery is essentially a man-made phenomenon, as God doesn't appear to discriminate based on nationality (Acts 10:34).

I think Paul recognises the existence of slavery as a social reality of the time and attempts to make the best of a sinful practice, but in my opinion any attempt to justify slavery using God as an excuse (as the passage in Leviticus does) is completely abhorrent.

If God is not a respecter of persons, then why does he apparently condone and encourage slavery?

 

[jimmydiggs]

Paul Copan - Is God a Moral Monster?

He discusses this a bit in his book. Recommend it.


This may be of interest to you.
YouTube - &#x202a;Slavery and Genocide in the Bible - Part 1 - Dr. Paul Copan&#x202c;&rlm; <--- click
YouTube - &#x202a;Slavery and Genocide in the Bible - Part 2 - Dr. Paul Copan&#x202c;&rlm; <--- click

 

[giantone]

If God is not a respecter of persons, then why does he apparently condone and encourage slavery?

Not all people are equal. (especially the peoples who are not God's people.)

None of us brought anything into the world and none will take anything with them. And who much has been given much is expected from them he who little has been given, less is expected from them.

so big, small, rich or poor were all still in the same boat.

and slavery never went away, it just takes different forms.

 

[Red_Tory]

Paul Copan - Is God a Moral Monster?

He discusses this a bit in his book. Recommend it.


This may be of interest to you.
YouTube - &#x202a;Slavery and Genocide in the Bible - Part 1 - Dr. Paul Copan&#x202c;&rlm; <--- click
YouTube - &#x202a;Slavery and Genocide in the Bible - Part 2 - Dr. Paul Copan&#x202c;&rlm; <--- click

I have heard of him before, but from what I gather he speaks on Hebrew slavery (far more humane, a contract designed to pay off debt as opposed to classic conceptions of slavery), not the enslavement of foreigners. There are many restrictions on the treatment of Israelite slaves, yet they don't seem to apply to those who are not Israeli.

In fact, I think this whole idea of debt slavery to be pretty nifty and superior to our own system of perpetual life-long debt to credit card companies!

Isralites were not to be ruled over ruthlessly, but I don't think it says anything about foreigners. While Israelites were "servants" for seven years, foreigners were not released after seven years, and were personal property passed down through the generations.

What I'm trying to get at is this "double standard"; in the Old Testament God says certain races (i.e. not Israelites) are OK to enslave, but in the New Testament writers say that God doesn't judge based on race, nationality, socio-economic status etc.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I don't recall the bible referrin to anyone by race. Nationality, yes. Moabites, amalekites, caaninites, israelites, judeans... etc etc... Not generally, white/black/hispanic/asian/Purple People Eater...

This might be of use.

Slavery in the OT <--- click

 

[jimmydiggs]

I also would like ot add, that I think social conditioning is goin to play a big role in how we look at these verses.

 

[Red_Tory]

I use the term "race" more often than I should, because I think modern ideas of race are often rather generic, as back in "the day", race was often closely linked to nationality. For instance, within what we regard as a "white" European population you have Scandinavians, Jutes, Angles, Normans, Saxons, Slavs and even more, each with their own subtle yet distinct racial characteristics. For something like "Asian" you actually have distinct races within nations such as Koreans, Chinese, Yakuts, Mongoloids etc.

Just semantics, really...

 

[trust_in_the_name]

The Israelites were God's chosen people. God established a covenant with them, and they enjoyed a special relationship with Him. So in that regard, God was indeed a respector of persons. But beyond that, it refers to "the nations around you." It doesn't say, you can enslave this group of foreigners, but not this other group. So beyond the special status of the Israelites, I don't see any unequal treatment or discrimination: all of them were viable slaves. Biblical slavery wasn't based on race (apart from immunity for God's chosen people).

 

[resurrection33]

Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. I think that pretty much tells you what he thinks of slavery.

 

[Red_Tory]

The Israelites were God's chosen people. God established a covenant with them, and they enjoyed a special relationship with Him. So in that regard, God was indeed a respector of persons. But beyond that, it refers to "the nations around you." It doesn't say, you can enslave this group of foreigners, but not this other group. So beyond the special status of the Israelites, I don't see any unequal treatment or discrimination: all of them were viable slaves. Biblical slavery wasn't based on race (apart from immunity for God's chosen people).

It says you can enslave people from other nations and not your own countrymen. The special status of the Israelites is unequal treatment and discrimination. The passage implies that certain people are less valuable and not worthy of the same degree of moral consideration based on their place of birth.


Now how does that measure up to the picture of God presented in the New Testament who is not a respector of persons, and supposedly accepts people from all nations as equal?

 

[trust_in_the_name]

It says you can enslave people from other nations and not your own countrymen. The special status of the Israelites is unequal treatment and discrimination. The passage implies that certain people are less valuable and not worthy of the same degree of moral consideration based on their place of birth.


Now how does that measure up to the picture of God presented in the New Testament who is not a respector of persons, and supposedly accepts people from all nations as equal?

The Israelites did have a special position, because they were God's chosen people, and He established His covenant with them. It was unequal treatment, but the reason for that treatment was God's covenant with them, which He established for His own reasons, not because they were in any way superior in a racial sense. Later, God established a new covenant, with the whole world, Jew and gentile. With the establishment of the new covenant, the old one was over with.

 

[Red_Tory]

The Israelites did have a special position, because they were God's chosen people, and He established His covenant with them. It was unequal treatment, but the reason for that treatment was God's covenant with them, which He established for His own reasons, not because they were in any way superior in a racial sense. Later, God established a new covenant, with the whole world, Jew and gentile. With the establishment of the new covenant, the old one was over with.

So essentially we have a situation in which in one given year God says it is permissible to oppress and enslave people from other nations, and then in another He says it isn't. I think it goes beyond "let's change this contract", it's a fundamental shift in moral character and philosophy; it's the difference between treating people as human beings or as cattle.

How does this fit in to the idea of an absolute, eternal and unchanging God?

 

[trust_in_the_name]

So essentially we have a situation in which in one given year God says it is permissible to oppress and enslave people from other nations, and then in another He says it isn't. I think it goes beyond "let's change this contract", it's a fundamental shift in moral character and philosophy; it's the difference between treating people as human beings or as cattle.

How does this fit in to the idea of an absolute, eternal and unchanging God?

Because it was the covenant that changed, not God. Obviously, what God does can change without Him changing; otherwise, He couldn't do anything. And slavery wasn't absolved in the New Testament.

 

[Red_Tory]

So God changes what he does, but not what he thinks/"believes"? Since the ideas surrounding the role of nationality/race in the Old Testament are rather different than what is expressed in the New Testament, does this not mean that God would hold one of them to be true (or perhaps neither), yet gives commands to the contrary?



Essentially: are God's commands a reflection of His moral character? If so, and if we accept that what he does or commands changes, but does He change? If not, does this mean that God will issue a command or lay down a law that is contrary to His character (perhaps a better term would be "opinion" or "principles", but I don't think God has opinions in the same way that humans do).


Does God consider the nationality of a person in His dealings with them? If this is so, why does it say he doesn't in the New Testament? If not, why does He appear to do so in the Old Testament through His commands to the Israelites? It's logically impossible to do both at the same time, so is there a change?

 

[trust_in_the_name]

So God changes what he does, but not what he thinks/"believes"? Since the ideas surrounding the role of nationality/race in the Old Testament are rather different than what is expressed in the New Testament, does this not mean that God would hold one of them to be true (or perhaps neither), yet gives commands to the contrary?



Essentially: are God's commands a reflection of His moral character? If so, and if we accept that what he does or commands changes, but does He change? If not, does this mean that God will issue a command or lay down a law that is contrary to His character (perhaps a better term would be "opinion" or "principles", but I don't think God has opinions in the same way that humans do).


Does God consider the nationality of a person in His dealings with them? If this is so, why does it say he doesn't in the New Testament? If not, why does He appear to do so in the Old Testament through His commands to the Israelites? It's logically impossible to do both at the same time, so is there a change?

The specific nature of God's relationship with mankind has changed through history, not because He changed, but because His plan for mankind takes place through historical time. His special relationship with Israel during the old covenant was eternally a part of His plan, and during that time the nation of Israel was His chosen people. The new covenant is the next stage of His plan, and as part of that plan the new covenant included the gentiles in addition to the Jews.

God considered the nationality of the Israelites during the old covenant because that was a part of His plan.

 

[Red_Tory]

But does God's plan (including His commands) reflect His character/opinions?

 

[trust_in_the_name]

But does God's plan (including His commands) reflect His character/opinions?

Yes, in the sense that His actions don't contradict who He is. But that doesn't mean His reasons are always known or knowable to us, since His ways and thoughts are not our ways and thoughts, and are past finding out.

3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord. 9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! (Romans 11:33)

 

[francina]

Gen_9:25 he said, "A curse on Canaan! He will be a slave to his brothers.
Gen_9:26 Give praise to the LORD, the God of Shem! Canaan will be the slave of Shem.
Gen_9:27 May God cause Japheth to increase! May his descendants live with the people of Shem! Canaan will be the slave of Japheth."


Slavery was used by God as judgment against a nations wrong doing.

Gen 15:3 You have given me no children, and one of my slaves will inherit my property."
Exo_21:16 "Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave, is to be put to death.
Exo_21:20 "If a slave owner takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female, and the slave dies on the spot, the owner is to be punished.
Exo_21:21 But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property is punishment enough.
Exo_21:26 "If someone hits his male or female slave in the eye and puts it out, he is to free the slave as payment for the eye.
Exo_21:27 If he knocks out a tooth, he is to free the slave as payment for the tooth.
Exo_21:32 If the bull kills a male or female slave, its owner shall pay the owner of the slave thirty pieces of silver, and the bull shall be stoned to death.
Remember how Joseph was a slave but in charge of all that his master owned. Abraham said that his slave would inherit from him if he did not have an heir.
You are getting slavery in the bible confused with 'Roots'. Slavery was a form of a work force, they were provided for. God does make it a law in under the Old Covenant that they ought to be treated humanely even if it was judgment. Slaves became so through war or trade, but notice that to kidnap & sell a men was completely against the law of God.
Now, here is the controversial part. First let me say that Jesus referred to this speaking to Pilot when he said the one who sold you to me has the greater sin.
The controversial part of the African slave trade is that it was other Africans who kidnapped & sold the Africans to the ships from Spain, Britain, France & America that waited on the coast line.