The Bible: Its attitude towards slavery

[omega sequence]

Hi Theology Web folk,

This is my first post here (yay me!).

Anyhow, could anyone here please direct me to some threads, internet/offnet resources, or offer up some information about the Bible's attitude regarding slavery (specifically the slavery in the OT)?

I'm look for a response to the claim that the bible supports slavery.

Thanks,

In Hoc Signo Vinces,
Omega sequence

[Thomas2003]

Dear Sir,

I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you can do so without foaming at the mouth! :-)

The Scripture supports slavery in the terms of bond servitude, it does not support chattel slavery. There is a difference, a huge difference.

The Scriptural concept is that one man can have, for a limited time, a property right in a mans labor; that is quite different than the man's being being property. Please notice I didn't say, the man wasn't property, I said his being wasn't property, the nature of what the man is. Chattle slavery holds man as animals, it is evolutionary thought exemplified.

Scripture has a very different concept of the term "property" than the moden mind does. If you separate property from the covenant you just cannot understand it and most Americans, in particular, have a non-Christian view of property. In non-christian thought the world and the flesh are united with the devil and form an unholy trinity - so the very concept of property is segregated from morality. Hence, to consider a man as property is an immoral thought.

In Christian thought the virgin birth and property are inseparable, thus the material world and the flesh are redeemed in Christ and bound to the Holy Trinity in the incarnation. It is a reference in time and history and becomes fixed for eternity in the ascension. Jesus has come to claim His property, the earth, all nations and all men as His property. He overturned the dominion of sin in history and He rules from the throne of David at the right hand of God the Father.

The Christian view, above, is the Covenantal view of the Old Testament - it just wasn't revealed in history who exactly which man would fulfill the Promises.

If you stick with the Sciptures you can learn a lot on this issue, if you try to interpret the Scripture from a Manichaen view of reality, instead of a Covenantal view, then it is impossible to understand.

Cordially,

Thomas

[$cirisme]

/ot Welcome to TheologyWeb!! :hi:

[NSMinistries]

What Cir said... :hi:

[David O]

This guy sounds like property to me. So do his (given) wife and children.

Exodus 21
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

[Marcus1962]

This may be of some help.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=94


The Bible and Slavery
The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word. (This is not to say that the enslavement of any one person, or group of people, is due to their sin, for many have been enslaved unjustly, like Joseph and numerous Christians throughout history.) Personal and civil liberty is the result of applying the truth of the Scriptures. As a person or nation more fully applies the principles of Christianity, there will be increasing freedom in every realm of life. Sanctification for a person, or nation, is a gradual process. The fruit of changed thinking and action, which comes from rooting sin out of our lives, may take time to see. This certainly applies historically in removing slavery from the Christian world.

[David O]

Thanks for the link. I can't see this as true because of the Mosaic books. Do you;

"The Bible and Slavery
The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word."

Sometimes tragedy renders a person unable to pay his bills. The OT took care of him with slavery. Even Isaelites could be taken care of that way. They were released in the year of jubilee, but the non-Israelis were not. All this by direct order of God.

[apologetics]

I suggest getting your hands on Norm Geisler's When Skeptics Ask and When Critics Ask. He addresses this issue in both books.

Basically, his point is that NO WHERE does the Bible approve of slavery. Everytime that slavery is mentioned, the Biblical author is simply acknowledging the institution. It mentions literally 100's of types of sin....does that mean that the Bible is approving of sin? Just because Paul instructs slaves to do their best within the confines of the situation they find themselves doesn't equate to the Bible's authorization of the institution itself. Atheists and skeptics attempting to use this charge against Christians have perverted and violate every single rule of Biblical hermeneutics to accomplish this. They have to read into the passage what they desire to be in the passage (eisegesis) rather than the proper interpretive method of reading the passage as written (exegesis). This is the basis of nearly every single supposed Biblical contradiction.

Pick up both books....you'll find tons of great answers to all of the skeptics questions.

[Robyn Banks]

08-08-2003 @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=171831#post171831)
omega sequence:

Hi Theology Web folk,

This is my first post here (yay me!).

Anyhow, could anyone here please direct me to some threads, internet/offnet resources, or offer up some information about the Bible's attitude regarding slavery (specifically the slavery in the OT)?

I'm look for a response to the claim that the bible supports slavery.

Thanks,

In Hoc Signo Vinces,
Omega sequence

[David O]

Thanks for the information but I dislike Norm Geisler's use of the Bible. He is not careful. The Bible instructs the Israelites on how to properly have slaves, even Israelite ones. Proverbs says that the person who is in debt is a slave of the person to whom he is indebted. David refers to himself as a slave of God. He means it in a good way. All over the Bible slavery is the way people acknowledge their relationship to God. How can you say it is wrong?

[Andrew]

Glenn Miller has two excellent articles:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

[David O]

...and he recorded some great music, too. Sorry I'm a dork like that.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I thought that I might a(n orthodox) Jewish perspective. In our view, institution of slavery as it is defined by the Torah is more akin to the colonial American notion of indentured servitude, NOT chattel slavery as it was practiced in the antebellum South. I submit the following from The Jewish Encyclopedia:


The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant"
(a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3),
and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to
Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery (Ex. xxi. 2-7). Where real
slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and
"bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines (Lev. xxv. 49).

Treatment of Hebrew Bondmen.

—Biblical Data:

The duty of treating the Hebrew servant and handmaid otherwise than as slaves, and above
all their retention in service for a limited time only, was deemed by the lawgiver of such
importance that the subject was put next to the Decalogue at the very head of civil
legislation (Ex. xxi. 2-11). It is treated in its legal bearings also (Lev. xxv. 39-54; Deut. xv.
12-18). The prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xxxiv. 8-24) denounces the permanent enslavement of
Hebrew men and women by their masters as the gravest of national sins, for which the
kingdom of Judah forfeits all claim to God's mercy, and justly sinks into ruin and exile. While
the above-cited passages breathe a common spirit of humanity and brotherhood, they seem
to conflict with one another in several points which the sages of the Mishnah contrive to
reconcile.

The only cause mentioned in the Pentateuch for selling a man into bondage without his
consent is his inability to make due restoration for goods stolen (Ex. xxii. 2); but from II
Kings iv. 1-7 it is seen that in the kingdom of Israel the sons of an insolvent deceased debtor
were sold for the father's debts, and from Isa. iv. 1 that in the kingdom of Judah the debtor
was forced to sell his children to appease his creditors. This usage was not supported by the
Law, unless the passage in Leviticus which speaks of "thy brother," when he "waxes poor"
and "is sold to thee," refers to a sale for debt; or unless the critics are right in ascribing to
the laws as now found a later origin than that of Elisha, or even of Deutero-Isaiah.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

The following account is drawn mainly from Maimonides:

The Hebrew servant referred to in the Torah is of two classes: (1) he whom the court has
sold without his consent; and (2) he who has willingly sold himself. The court may sell a man
for theft only, as noted above. A man may sell himself (Lev. xxv. 39) because of extreme
poverty, after all his means are exhausted; he should not sell himself as long as any means
are left to him. (...). The sale of a Hebrew into bondage should be made
privately, not from an auction-block, nor even from the sidewalk, where other slaves are
sold.

Amount of Work Required.

The Hebrew servant, Scripture says (Lev. xxv. 43), must not be treated with rigor. This was
held to mean that no needless work must be imposed on him for the purpose of keeping him
under discipline; nor, as Maimonides thinks, any unlimited task such as might be imposed
by the command: "Work on till I come!" Nor must he be put to bondman's work (ib. verse
39), i.e., to any humiliating task, such as only slaves perform; and if practicable, he should be
set to the same trade in which he was engaged while a freeman.

Whether sold under judgment of a court or voluntarily, the Hebrew servant, if he runs away
and is recaptured, must make good the time of his absence, unless the jubilee supervenes,
when underany circumstances he is released. When he becomes sick, and thus unable to
work, if the time lost is altogether less than four years, none of the time of sickness is
charged against the servant; but, if it is more than four years, he must make it up. If the
sickness does not disable him for light work (such as work with the needle), even if he is sick
for the whole six years of the term of a sold servant, it counts toward his freedom. However,
if the Hebrew servant will not do his duty, as a good hireling would do it, he may, by way of
discipline, be put to servile work. The master of a Hebrew bondman (or a bondmaid) must
place him on an equality with himself in meat and drink, in lodging and in bed-clothes, and
must act toward him in a brotherly manner; for Scripture always speaks of him as "thy
brother." Hence it was said (Nid. 20a): "Whoever buys a Hebrew servant buys a master for
himself."

Self-Redemption Possible.

Either kind of servant is entitled to redeem himself by paying his master a portion of the
original purchase price proportionate to the number of years still unexpired; thus if he was
bought for ninety shekels for a term of six years, the master must allow him to go upon the
payment of fifteen shekels for every year still remaining of this term.

(...).

Differences Between the Two Kinds.

While the man sold into service is bound for a term of six years, the man who sells himself
voluntarily binds himself for a term longer than six years, generally ten or twenty. While the
former may not be sold to a non-Israelite (not even to a convert), the latter may sell himself
to an Israelite, to a convert, to a denizen ("ger toshab"), or even to the "root of the family of
a stranger," that is, to a Gentile (see above). But under all circumstances, if within the power
of Israel's laws, he becomes free, like every other Hebrew servant, in the year of jubilee.

The man sold by the court may live with a Canaanite bondwoman whom his master assigns
to him (Ex. xxi. 4); but the self-sold servant may not. The former may extend the period of his
servitude by having his right ear pierced by his master at the door or door-post, after which
he must serve "forever," that is, to the jubilee; the latter may not extend his term of service,
and his ear is not pierced. The former, after his ear is pierced, has another possibility of
freedom. The text says "he shall serve him" (his master): by taking this literally, he "acquires
himself" or becomes free by the death of his master (see Nid. i. 2; Baraita, ib. 14b).

Within the six years, or within the time for which a man has sold himself, the Hebrew servant
is not freed by the death of the master (if an Israelite) if the latter leaves a son, but need not
serve a daughter or other surviving heirs. When a man is sold by the court, the master is
bound to furnish such a servant's wife with food; he having, it seems, the right to her
services, which hitherto belonged to her husband (Nid. 22a).

The Hebrew Bondmaid.

According to tradition, a Hebrew female may not be sold by the court for theft, nor may she
sell herself; she may be sold for a bondmaid ("amah") only in the one way shown in Ex. xxi. 7:
"When a man sells his daughter for a bondmaid" (A. V. "maid servant"). The father has this
power over his daughter only while she is a minor, that is, less than twelve years of age, or at
least while she does not bear the signs of puberty; and he should use his right only in the
extreme of poverty, and then as the last resort before selling himself. The sale becomes
complete by the delivery of money or money's worth, or through a deed ("sheṭar") written
in the father's name. The girl remains in service at most six years, like a man servant. If the
jubilee arrives before the expiration of this term she is discharged by virture of that fact; or if
the master dies, though he leaves a son, she goes free. She may also obtain her freedom by
redemption at a reduced price, as explained above, or by a deed of emancipation given to her
by her master. All this is implied in the words of the text (Deut. xv., Hebr.), "Thou shalt do
likewise to thy bondmaid." But over and above all these paths to liberty she has another: as
soon as her signs of puberty appear the master must marry her or must betroth her to his
son, or must send her free. In case of marriage she stands as a wife on the same footing as
any freewoman in Israel. By the very words of the text in Exodus the master is forbidden to
sell her to an outsider (lit. "to a foreign people"), either as a worker or as a wife.

In conclusion, it may be said of Hebrew man servants and bondmaids that, unlike Canaanite
servants, they do not become free by reason of an assault on the part of the master which
results in the loss of an eye or a tooth; but, as shown under Assault and Battery, in such a
case the master is liable to them in an action for damages.

The Parting Gift.

According to Deut. xv., whoever dismisses his Hebrew man servant or maid servant must
not send either of them away empty-handed, but must provide a parting gift. This law,
however, does not apply to the following: a man who has sold himself; a servant sold by the
court, who hastens his freedom by redeeming himself at a price reduced by lapse of time;
one who has run away from his master, and who while at large has become free through the
jubilee. A baraita (Nid. 17a) fixes the value of the gift at thirty shekels (this being the average
value of three cited in as many opinions); and it should be made "from thy flock, thy
thrashing-floor, and thy wine-press," i.e., in products, the visible blessing of God, not in
money or in clothing. The literal meaning of the verb usedin reference to this parting gift in
the text seems to be "to hang round the neck."

Foreign-Born Bondmen.

The Israelite is permitted by Lev. xxv. 44-46 to buy bondmen and bondwomen (in the true
sense of the word) from among the surrounding nations, or from the strangers dwelling in
his land, and from the descendants of these born in the land; the "indwelling" stranger being
distinguished from the stranger who lives under the same law as the Israelite. Such bondmen
or bondwomen become a possession, and are inherited by children like other property. But
the law limits the absolute power of the master. If he strikes his bondman or bondwoman so
as to cause the loss of an eye or a tooth, he or she goes free. If he smites him or her so as to
cause death on the same day, the deed is avenged as a murder; but not when death ensues
on a subsequent day (Ex. xxi. 20, 21, 26, 27). Another alleviation of bondage is the law (Deut.
xxiii. 16, 17) forbidding the return of a fugitive slave to his master by those among whom he
seeks shelter. The religious status of bondmen owned by Israelites is well defined by the
Scriptures, which make them an integral part of the community. The males, though of foreign
blood, whether bought for money, or "born in the house," are to be circumcised (Gen. xvii.
27; Ex. xii. 44), and when circumcised are to be admitted to eat of the Passover meal (ib.).
Likewise the bondmen or bondwomen of a priest may eat of his holy meats (Lev. xxii. 11).
Neither bondmen nor bondwomen are to be required to work on the Sabbath (Ex. xx. 10);
indeed, the opportunity for the "son of thy handmaid" to have a "breathing-space" (A. V.
"may be refreshed") is mentioned as one of the great motives for the institution of the
Sabbath (Ex. xxiii. 12).

(...).

Like many other Torah precepts related to the Temple & 7th and Jubilee years, the institution of Torah servitude is considered to be temporarily suspended. Since 7th and Jubilee years were directly beneficial to bound servants, the Torah institution of servitude cannot be kept until the 7th & Jubilee years are reinstated in full & this will not jhappen until the Messiah comes.

Questions?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[David O]

Thank you, sir.