Slavery in Modern Times Some Observations on Biblical Interpretation and Slavery âWhen you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.â âExodus 21:2-6. âSlaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.â âEphesians 6:5-6. If there is anything in the Bible that makes modern people nervous, it is its treatment of slavery. Slavery is humanely regulated in the legal portions of the Old Testament, and in the epistles of the New Testament slaveholders are exhorted to show kindness to slaves, but nowhere in the Bible is there anything which can be interpreted as a disapproval of the institution as such. People of our generation, Christians included, tend to have a very hard time with this, because it seems to amount to a tacit approval of the institution, and we balk at the idea that God did not consider the institution itself to be immoral. Part of the problem is that we have false ideas about what slavery was really like. The life of a slave was not easy, but we get an exaggerated idea of the hardships of slavery from watching movies or reading historical material that is written on a popular level. Here the purpose is usually to dramatize the plight of slaves or to make some point about the evils of slavery in general, (1) but the historical reality was less dramatic. In most cases the life of a slave was not much different from the life of any lower-class worker. Those who have been in the military have experienced something like it â being legally bound to an employer and to a job that one cannot simply "quit" at will, not free to leave without permission, subject to discipline if one disobeys or is grossly negligent â all of this is familiar enough to those of us who have served in the military. And yet we know that the daily life of a good soldier is not especially hard. This is what it was like to be a slave. Another problem is, when thinking about slavery we tend to have in mind the recent slavery of the black race in America, and so the whole subject of slavery gets mixed up with the issue of racism. But in ancient times, slavery was not associated with any particular race. By condoning slavery the Bible does not approve of racism. A third reason why modern people have a hard time understanding the Bible's treatment of slavery is that we often now tend to confuse morality with political values. The modern tendency is to politicize everything, including even the Christian gospel. Moral philosophy or ethics has become so politicized that it seems to be almost a sub-department of political science now, which is why we have seen the rise of an elaborate political correctness in our public life. "Racism," "sexism," "homophobia," and so on, are the really serious sins under this new morality. Although we all know that people are not really equal, the egalitarian ideology of our time is considered to be of such overriding importance that any slight affront to it is considered sinful, while the principles of ordinary old-fashioned morality are downplayed and even denied. This political correctness is not merely a fad, it is the logical and inevitable result of the politicization of morality, the elaboration of an entirely new morality based upon political ideas of right and wrong.
You misunderstand, but I this time I do sympathize. I agree with you that I am not a humble person outwardly. But inwardly I am one of the most humble people imaginable. It is through a realization of how similar any two people are from any part on this planet, that one begins to see how common and alike we are to each other. But still, you misunderstand what I am saying even if you understood the above. I am not saying that I am an angel and that I am not full of human frailties, far from it. But then I don't go killing people for disagreeing with me. The tolerance and humility that I speak of is not the kind that abstains from heated debates. For example, you and I both find "gurus" distasteful in their exploitive intents with unwary newbie traders. Do we back down from these charlatans because of humility? No that would be as bad as the perpetrators themselves, and when we expose them we are not being humble in our harsh language, but we are being true to our good natured selves nontheless. nitro
Slavery and the New Testament 1 Corinthians 7:21 Ladd mentions the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21, which we will examine now in some detail, because some recent Bible versions have paraphrased the verse in such a way that it appears to be telling slaves that they should seek emancipation. But this interpretation is anachronistic and does violence to the context. In fact the meaning is quite the opposite. It is an instruction to slaves that they should care so little for worldly freedom that they should not even take notice of any opportunities to become free, as in the following modern versions: New English Bible (margin). Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let that trouble you; but even if a chance of liberty should come, choose rather to make good use of your servitude. Revised English Bible (margin). Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let that trouble you; but even if a chance of freedom should come, choose rather to make good use of your servitude. Today's English Version (margin). Were you a slave when God called you? Well, never mind; but even if you have a chance to become a free man, choose rather to make the best of your condition as a slave. New American Bible. Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery. American Standard Version. Wast thou called being a bond-servant? care not for it: nay, even if thou canst become free, use it rather. Revised Standard Version (margin). Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition instead. New Revised Standard Version. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. The Church Fathers (early writers of the Church) favored this interpretation. See, for example, the commentaries of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophlact. Here are Chrysostom's words on the verse: "Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Hast thou been called, having an unbelieving wife? Continue to have her. Cast not out thy wife for the faith's sake. Hast thou been called, being a slave? Care not for it. Continue to be a slave. Hast thou been called, being in uncircumcision? Remain uncircumcised. Being circumcised, didst thou become a believer? Continue circumcised. For this is the meaning of, "As God hath distributed unto each man." For these are no hindrances to piety. Thou art called, being a slave; another, with an unbelieving wife; another, being circumcised. Astonishing! where has he put slavery? As circumcision profits not, and uncircumcision does no harm, so neither doth slavery, nor yet liberty. And that he might point out this with surpassing clearness, he says, "But even (All eikai dunasai) if thou canst become free, use it rather:" that is, rather continue a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave? He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage. Now we are not ignorant that some say the words, "use it rather," are spoken with regard to liberty: interpreting it, "if thou canst become free, become free." But the expression would be very contrary to Paul's manner if he intended this. For he would not, when consoling the slave and signifying that he was in no respect injured, have told him to get free. Since perhaps someone might say, "What then, if I am not able? I am an injured and degraded person." This then is not what he says: but as I said, meaning to point out that a man gets nothing by being made free, he says, "Though thou hast it in thy power to be made free, remain rather in slavery." Next he adds also the cause; "For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's free man: likewise he that was called, being free, is Christ's bondservant." "For," saith he, "in the things that relate to Christ, both are equal: and like as thou art the slave of Christ, so also is thy master. How then is the slave a free man? Because He has freed thee not only from sin, but also from outward slavery while continuing a slave. For he suffers not the slave to be a slave, not even though he be a man abiding in slavery: and this is the great wonder. But how is the slave a free man while continuing a slave? When he is freed from passions and the diseases of the mind: when he looks down upon riches and wrath and all other the like passions. Ver. 23. "Ye were bought with a price: become not bondservants of men." This saying is addressed not to slaves only but also to free men. For it is possible for one who is a slave not to be a slave; and for one who is a freeman to be a slave. "And how can one be a slave and not a slave?" When he doeth all for God: when he feigns nothing, and doeth nothing out of eye-service towards men: that is how one that is a slave to men can be free. Or again, how doth one that is free become a slave? When he serves men in any evil service, either for gluttony or desire of wealth or for office's sake. For such an one, though he be free, is more of a slave than any man. (10) Early modern interpreters which follow this line include Camerarius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and many others. In the nineteenth century, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, Ewald, Baur, Vaihinger, Weiss, and Meyer. In recent years it generally prevails among scholarly commentators, as for example in C.K. Barrett's commentary: "Were you a slave when you were called? See i.26 for the low social standing of many Corinthian Christians. Let not that trouble you, but even though you should be able to become free (emancipation could take place in a variety of ways, and was not infrequent) put up rather with your present status. A number of grammarians (e.g. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, i. 247; ii. 165; Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, pp. 21, 167; M.E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (1962), pp. 78-82), and many commentators, prefer to render, If you actually (ei kai) have an opportunity of becoming free, by all means (mallon, elative) seize it. This finds some support in the aorist tense of the imperative (crhsai), but does not make sense in the context; see especially the discussion, with references, in J.N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, pp. 189 f. (and the same context for a discussion of the Pauline and Stoic attitudes to slavery). Particularly important is the for (gar) with which the next verse begins: You need not hesitate to put up with your servile condition, for the slave who has been called in the Lord (that is, to be a Christian, one who is in Christ) is the Lord's freedman; and similarly the free man who has been called is Christ's slave." (11)
Slavery and the New Testament Continued 1 Timothy 1:10 Sometimes 1 Timothy 1:10 is mentioned as one verse which might indicate that the Bible considers slavery to be sinful. This misinterpretation was often put forth in abolitionist writings of the Civil-War Era. For example, in 1836 Angelina Grimke (a feminist abolitionist who was neither a scholar nor a believer in the Bible) wrote, "how can it be said Paul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter beyond all doubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his first epistle to Timothy, he mentions 'menstealers,' which word may be translated 'slavedealers'?" (12) The verse lists andrapodistaiV "menstealers" along with other ungodly and sinful persons (murderers, fornicators, sodomites, liars, etc.), and indeed this word is translated "slave traders" in the New International Version and in the New Living Translation. The New International Reader's Version (a revision of the NIV for children) even interprets it as, "people who buy and sell slaves." This is in keeping with Grimke's interpretation. But this is certainly not the meaning of the word. Thayer's Lexicon explains that the word means "one who steals the slaves of others and sells them" or "one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery." This crime was often committed in ancient times. Penalties for it are specified in the Mosaic Law (see Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7), and it is frequently mentioned by Greek writers as the crime of andrapodon. In the ancient Roman code known as the Lex Fabia (third-second century B.C.) these slave-snatchers were called plagiarii, and so the word is translated thus in the Vulgate. (13) So andrapodistaiV in 1 Timothy 1:10 does not refer to all slave traders, any more than the word pornoiV "whoremongers, fornicators" in the same verse could refer all men who have sexual relations with a woman. It refers to those who engage in an illegal activity, kipnapping of slaves, and not the legal slave-trade itself. For this reason, most Bible versions translate the word "kidnappers." Why have the translators of the NIV and the NLT used the words "slave traders" here, without even indicating the correct interpretation in a footnote? One might expect the NIV Study Bible, at least, to indicate the meaning, but even in that copiously annotated edition of the NIV there is no explanatory note here. We also observe that the recently-published English Standard Version has "enslavers" here, which is somewhat better than "slave-traders," and it also has a note stating that the word means "those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery." But this translation and this note are also incorrect for two reasons: In ancient times those who were taken captive in war were often kept or sold as slaves, unless they were redeemed by the payment of a ransom, and this military custom was not considered to be andrapodon. It was considered to be a merciful alternative to the massacre of defeated enemies. (14) Also, the crime of andrapodon often involved the kidnapping of one who was already a slave, not the enslavement of one who had been free. If the translators were not satisfied with "kidnappers" because this word does not indicate the connection with the illegal slave trade, they might have rendered it "slave-kidnappers," but "enslavers" is not the meaning of this word. We suspect an apologetic purpose for these mistranslations. All of these versions were sponsored by evangelical publishers, and many evangelical apologists have used isolated misinterpretations of 1 Timothy 1:10 in support of their contention that the Bible does not really condone slavery after all. But however well-meaning this may be, and however expedient it may be for apologists, it prevents people from really coming to terms with the world-view of the Biblical authorsâa world-view which is very remote from modern egalitarian values and agendas. None of this is to suggest that slavery is a good idea in the modern world. But it is a requirement of scholarly integrity, and of any true understanding of the Bible, that we should refrain from importing our own modern political and social values into the text.
ALL OF HUMANITY Romans 6:16,17 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey -whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. John 8:34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 2 Peter 2:19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity - for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. We are ALL slaves to sin until Christ redeems us unto himself. If you are not of Christ then you are of your father the Devil. He too sinned from the begining and continues to this day. WE are all either a slave to Christ or a slave to sin.
I disagree, and I can see that, you and I will apparently have to agree to disagree. The blunt reality is that God had no problem sending all manner of plagues on Pharaoh, in order to secure the Hebrews' release from bondage. The Lord's wrath was not only determined and brutal, it also defied the laws of the physical universe. The Lord parted the Red Sea, apparently without application of any known "force." Ordinarily, such an action would have required a very large amount of energy (a few 100 megatons of TNT, I'll wager), which would have almost certainly laid waste to all of the Hebrew observers and probably would have left a hole in the Earth a mile deep, and 100 miles in radius. The notion that God was merely recognizing the ancient cultures' long history of slavery de jure, is, for me, a massive rationalization that simply cannot be sustained by any reasonable observer. If God wanted to convince the Hebrews to free their slaves, He would have commanded it done immediately, and if the Hebrews had refused, He would have destroyed them. So, as Z10 says, it's all about your faith. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. If your faith directs you to accept that God was just giving the Hebrews an arbitrary and temporary free pass on the slavery deal, in recognition of their routine use of slavery as a part of ancient life, while simultaneously depriving the Egyptians of their Hebrew slave stock, that's fine with me. However, as a reasonable person, and in view of both the claim of the Bible's inerrancy combined with the plain and unambiguous text of Exodus 21, the only conclusion that I, can make, is that the Judeo-Christian God condones slavery.
OH MY, Aapex. Is this your comment or the comment of whomever originally authored the text of your recent post? "So, yes, the Bible does condone slavery. However, the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries." If I understand you correctly, then, slavery is ok with God, and thus ok with you as a Christian, as long as it's not racially motivated? Me thinks you may be praying to the wrong deity.
I know that you understand despite your continued remarks so there is no use to argue the point any further. You now want to argue just to argue. I have answered you and you don't like my answer. You can allow that to stand in the way of your eternal salvation but I think it has more to do with you then the text. You just can't handle it can you? God is a God of wrath and vengence as well as lovingkindness. I boast in his judgements and his lovingkindness. His Holiness is far greater than what you can even imagine. His standards are so much higher than ours. His ways are beyond ours and his thoughts beyond our comprehension. Admit it. There are things about God that you just don't understand. I have to run. Have a wonderfull weekend.
If you can live with the knowledge that your religion permits the ownership of persons as private property, and you still view your God as loving, and worthy of your devotion, then you are welcome to that view. But, to me, your god is not God -- it is the other. You have a nice weekend, too.