The new testament and slavery.

You might want to take this into consideration:

"Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

 

Having discussed this subject with others I realize that no matter what is said, some will still believe that God and the Bible support slavery.

Still here are couple of articles that be helpful in understanding how God and the Bible actually stand on the subject of slavery.

 

Did God Condone the Slave Trade?

DARK sweating bodies bent almost in two shuffle up gangplanks under the crushing burdens of enormous bales of cotton. Ruthless overseers drive them on with rawhide whips. Screaming children are torn from the arms of weeping mothers and sold to the highest bidder in auctions. These are likely the stark, brutal images that come to mind when you think of slavery.

Ironically, it is said that many slave traders and slave owners were deeply religious individuals. Historian James Walvin wrote: “There were hundreds of such men, Europeans and Americans, who praised the Lord for his blessing, giving thanks for profitable and safe business in Africa as they turned their slave ships into the trade winds and headed for the New World.”

Some people have even asserted that God condoned the slave trade. For example, in a speech to the General Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church in 1842, Alexander McCaine stated that the institution of slavery was “ordained by God Himself.” Was McCaine correct? Did God approve of the kidnapping and raping of girls, the heartless separating of families, and the cruel beatings that were part and parcel of the slave trade of McCaine’s day? And what of the millions who are forced to live and work as slaves under brutal conditions today? Does God condone such inhumane treatment?

Slavery and the Israelites
The Bible states that “man has dominated man to his injury.” (Ecclesiastes 8:9) This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the oppressive forms of slavery that have been devised by man. Jehovah God is not indifferent to the suffering that slavery has wrought.

For example, consider a situation that developed with the Israelites. The Bible tells us that the Egyptians “kept making their life bitter with hard slavery at clay mortar and bricks and with every form of slavery in the field, yes, every form of slavery of theirs in which they used them as slaves under tyranny.” The Israelites “continued to sigh because of the slavery and to cry out in complaint, and their cry for help kept going up to the true God.” Was Jehovah indifferent to their plight? On the contrary, “God heard their groaning and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Furthermore, Jehovah told his people: “I shall certainly bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from their slavery.”—Exodus 1:14; 2:23, 24; 6:6-8.

Clearly, Jehovah did not approve of ‘man dominating man’ through abusive slavery. But did not God later allow slavery among his people? Yes, he did. However, the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout history.

God’s Law stated that kidnapping and selling a human was punishable by death. Furthermore, Jehovah provided guidelines to protect slaves. For example, a slave who was maimed by his master would be set free. If a slave died because his master beat him, the master could be punished with death. Women captives could become slaves, or they could be taken as wives. But they were not to be used for mere sexual gratification. The gist of the Law must have led righthearted Israelites to treat slaves with respect and kindness, as if these were hired laborers.—Exodus 20:10; 21:12, 16, 26, 27; Leviticus 22:10, 11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

Some Jews voluntarily became slaves to their fellow Jews in order to repay debts. This practice protected people from starvation and actually allowed many to recover from poverty. Furthermore, at key junctures in the Jewish calendar, slaves were to be released if they so desired.* (Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:12) Commenting on these laws regarding slaves, Jewish scholar Moses Mielziner stated that a “slave could never cease to be a man, he was looked upon as a person possessing certain natural human rights, with which the master even could not with impunity interfere.” What a stark contrast to the abusive systems of slavery that mar the annals of history!

Slavery and Christians
Slavery was part of the economic system of the Roman Empire, under which first-century Christians lived. Hence, some Christians were slaves, and others had slaves. (1 Corinthians 7:21, 22) But does this mean that disciples of Jesus were abusive slave owners? Hardly! Regardless of what Roman law permitted, we can be confident that Christians did not mistreat those under their authority. The apostle Paul even encouraged Philemon to treat his slave Onesimus, who had become a Christian, as “a brother.”*—Philemon 10-17.

The Bible gives no indication that the enslavement of humans by other humans was part of God’s original purpose for mankind. Furthermore, no Bible prophecies allude to humans owning fellow humans through slavery in God’s new world. Rather, in that coming Paradise, righteous ones “will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making them tremble.”—Micah 4:4.

Clearly, the Bible does not condone the ill-treatment of others in any form. On the contrary, it encourages respect and equality among men. (Acts 10:34, 35) It exhorts humans to treat others the way that they would like to be treated. (Luke 6:31) Moreover, the Bible encourages Christians humbly to view others as superior, regardless of their social standing. (Philippians 2:3) These principles are totally incongruous with abusive forms of slavery practiced by many nations, especially in recent centuries.

[Footnotes]

The fact that provision was made to allow some to remain with their master clearly indicates that Israelite slavery was not abusive.

Similarly, some Christians today are employers; others are employees. Just as a Christian employer would not abuse those working under him, disciples of Jesus in the first century would have treated servants according to Christian principles.—Matthew 7:12.

 

SLAVE

The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ‛e′vedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (‛e′vedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ‛E′vedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God’s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar.—Jer 27:6.

The Greek term dou′los corresponds to the Hebrew word ‛e′vedh. It is used with reference to persons owned by fellowmen (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word syn′dou·los [fellow slave] appears); and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or corruption (2Pe 2:19).

The Hebrew word na′‛ar, like the Greek term pais, basically means a boy or a youth and can also designate a servant or an attendant. (1Sa 1:24; 4:21; 30:17; 2Ki 5:20; Mt 2:16; 8:6; 17:18; 21:15; Ac 20:12) The Greek term oi·ke′tes denotes a house servant or slave (Lu 16:13), and a female slave or servant is designated by the Greek word pai·di′ske. (Lu 12:45) The participial form of the Hebrew root sha·rath′ may be rendered by such terms as “minister” (Ex 33:11) or “waiter.” (2Sa 13:18) The Greek word hy·pe·re′tes may be translated “attendant,” “court attendant,” or “house attendant.” (Mt 26:58; Mr 14:54, 65; Joh 18:36) The Greek term the·ra′pon occurs solely at Hebrews 3:5 and means subordinate or attendant.

Before the Common Era.
War, poverty, and crime were the basic factors that reduced persons to a state of servitude. Captives of war were often constituted slaves by their captors or were sold into slavery by them. (Compare 2Ki 5:2; Joe 3:6.) In Israelite society a person who became poor could sell himself or his children into slavery to care for his indebtedness. (Ex 21:7; Le 25:39, 47; 2Ki 4:1) One guilty of thievery but unable to make compensation was sold for the things he stole, evidently regaining his freedom at the time all claims against him were cared for.—Ex 22:3.

At times slaves held a position of great trust and honor in a household. The patriarch Abraham’s aged servant (likely Eliezer) managed all of his master’s possessions. (Ge 24:2; 15:2, 3) Abraham’s descendant Joseph, as a slave in Egypt, came to be in charge of everything belonging to Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh. (Ge 39:1, 5, 6) In Israel, there was a possibility of a slave’s becoming wealthy and redeeming himself.—Le 25:49.

Laws governing slave-master relationships.
Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. Whereas the non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son (Le 25:44-46), the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his servitude or in the Jubilee year, depending upon which came first. During the time of his servitude the Hebrew slave was to be treated as a hired laborer. (Ex 21:2; Le 25:10; De 15:12) A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery to an alien resident, to a member of an alien resident’s family, or to a settler could be repurchased at any time, either by himself or by one having the right of repurchase. The redemption price was based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee year or until the seventh year of servitude. (Le 25:47-52; De 15:12) When granting a Hebrew slave his freedom, the master was to give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman. (De 15:13-15) If a slave had come in with a wife, the wife went out with him. However, if the master had given him a wife (evidently a foreign woman who would not be entitled to freedom in the seventh year of servitude), she and any children by her remained the property of the master. In such a case the Hebrew slave could choose to remain with his master. His ear would then be pierced with an awl to indicate that he would continue in servitude to time indefinite.—Ex 21:2-6; De 15:16, 17.

Female Hebrew slaves.
Certain special regulations applied to a female Hebrew slave. She could be taken as a concubine by the master or designated as a wife for his son. When designated as a wife for the master’s son, the Hebrewess was to be treated with the due right of daughters. Even if the son took another wife, there was to be no diminishing of her sustenance, clothing, and marriage due. A failure on the son’s part in this respect entitled the woman to her freedom without the payment of a redemption price. If the master sought to have a Hebrewess redeemed, he was not permitted to accomplish this by selling her to foreigners.—Ex 21:7-11.

Protections and privileges.
The Law protected slaves from brutalities. A slave was to be set at liberty if mistreatment by the master resulted in the loss of a tooth or an eye. As the usual value for a slave was 30 shekels (compare Ex 21:32), his liberation would have meant considerable loss to the master and, therefore, would have served as a strong deterrent against abuse. Although a master could beat his slave, the slave, depending upon the decision of the judges, was to be avenged if he died under his master’s beating. However, if the slave lingered on for a day or two before dying—this indicating that the master had not intended to kill the slave but to discipline him—he was not to be avenged. (Ex 21:20, 21, 26, 27; Le 24:17) Also, it would appear that for the master to have been considered free of guilt the beating could not have been administered with a lethal instrument, as that would have signified intent to kill. (Compare Nu 35:16-18.) Therefore, if a slave lingered on for a day or two, there would be reasonable question as to whether the death resulted from the chastisement. A beating with a rod, for example, would not normally be fatal, as is shown by the statement at Proverbs 23:13: “Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die.”

Certain privileges were granted to slaves by the terms of the Law. As all male slaves were circumcised (Ex 12:44; compare Ge 17:12), they could eat the Passover, and slaves of the priest could eat holy things. (Ex 12:43, 44; Le 22:10, 11) Slaves were exempted from working on the Sabbath. (Ex 20:10; De 5:14) During the Sabbath year they were entitled to eat of the growth from spilled kernels and from the unpruned vine. (Le 25:5, 6) They were to share in the rejoicing associated with the sacrificing at the sanctuary and the celebration of the festivals.—De 12:12; 16:11, 14.

First-Century Christian Position.
In the Roman Empire slaves were very numerous, with individuals owning hundreds and even thousands of slaves. The institution of slavery had the protection of the imperial government. First-century Christians did not take a stand against governmental authority in this matter and advocate a slaves’ revolt. They respected the legal right of others, including fellow Christians, to own slaves. That is why the apostle Paul sent back the runaway slave Onesimus. Because he had become a Christian, Onesimus willingly returned to his master, subjecting himself as a slave to a fellow Christian. (Phm 10-17) The apostle Paul also admonished Christian slaves not to take improper advantage of their relationship with believing masters. He said: “Let those having believing owners not look down on them, because they are brothers. On the contrary, let them the more readily be slaves, because those receiving the benefit of their good service are believers and beloved.” (1Ti 6:2) For a slave to have a Christian master was a blessing, as his owner was under obligation to deal righteously and fairly with him.—Eph 6:9; Col 4:1.

The acceptance of Christianity by those in servitude placed upon them the responsibility of being better slaves, “not talking back, not committing theft, but exhibiting good fidelity.” (Tit 2:9, 10) Even if their masters treated them unjustly, they were not to render inferior service. By suffering for righteousness’ sake, they imitated the example of Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:18-25) “You slaves,” wrote the apostle Paul, “be obedient in everything to those who are your masters in a fleshly sense, not with acts of eye-service, as men pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, with fear of Jehovah. Whatever you are doing, work at it whole-souled as to Jehovah, and not to men.” (Col 3:22, 23; Eph 6:5-8) Such fine conduct toward their masters prevented bringing reproach upon the name of God, as no one could blame Christianity for producing lazy, good-for-nothing slaves.—1Ti 6:1.

Of course, a slave’s ‘obedience in everything’ could not include disobeying God’s law, as that would have meant fearing men rather than God. Wrongdoing by slaves, even when committed at the direction of a superior, would not have ‘adorned the teaching of their Savior, God,’ but would have misrepresented and disgraced this teaching. (Tit 2:10) Thus, their Christian conscience would govern.

In the Christian congregation all persons, regardless of their social status, enjoyed the same standing. All were anointed by the same spirit and thus shared in the same hope as members of one body. (1Co 12:12, 13; Ga 3:28; Col 3:11) While more limited in what he could do in spreading the good news, the Christian slave was not to worry about this. If granted the opportunity to gain freedom, however, he would take advantage of it and thereby enlarge his sphere of Christian activity.—1Co 7:21-23.

Enslavement to Sin.
At the time the first man Adam disobeyed God’s law, he surrendered perfect control of himself and yielded to the selfish desire to continue sharing association with his sinful wife and pleasing her. Adam’s surrendering himself to his sinful desire made this desire and its end product, sin, his master. (Compare Ro 6:16; Jas 1:14, 15.) He thus sold himself under sin. As all of his offspring were yet in his loins, Adam also sold them under sin. That is why the apostle Paul wrote: “I am fleshly, sold under sin.” (Ro 7:14) For this reason there was no way for any of Adam’s descendants to make themselves righteous, not even by trying to keep the Mosaic Law. As the apostle Paul put it: “The commandment which was to life, this I found to be to death.” (Ro 7:10) The inability of humans to keep the Law perfectly showed that they were slaves to sin and deserving of death, not life.

Only by availing themselves of the deliverance made possible through Jesus Christ could individuals be emancipated or gain freedom from this enslavement. (Compare Joh 8:31-34; Ro 7:21-25; Ga 4:1-7; Heb 2:14-16.) Having been bought with the precious blood of Jesus, Christians are slaves, or servants, of Jehovah God and of his Son, obligated to keep their commands.—1Co 7:22, 23; 1Pe 1:18, 19; Re 19:1, 2, 5.

 

I also found this article an interesting read:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

 

What it has to do with is the influence of Christians acting on the principles taught by Jesus. (Something like the Americans acting on the principles of universal equality taught by slaveholder Jefferson.)

 

The article you provide us seeks to rationalize the ancient Judaic practice by saying it was a kinder, gentler slavery. For one human being to own another, with rights of sale and corporal punishment, is wrong, and efforts to justify it are a scandal to Christians. The thesis of the article is that the Bible did not condone slavery but did limit it's harshness. Non-Christians are likely to ask why the Bible didn't condemn the practice outright.

 

The bible and it's interpretations have enslaved millions of people over the past two millennia.

 

Like I already said:

I would also say that some seem to be so blinded by just the word "slavery" that they will not accept the truth of what the Bible says on the matter. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

 

True and also billions have been enslaved without any help at all from the bible and it's interpretations but then millions of true Christians have also been set free. (John 8:32)

 

You think black slaves in America weren't fed, sheltered, and clothed?

But they aren't principles taught. They are a change in the morals of society over time. The principles taught did not include anti-slavery.

 

The principles taught included universal love and acceptance, even of social rejects. Jesus had plenty of other controversial causes to occupy his attention during his brief ministry, including the agape principle, and he was successful enough to get himself nailed up. His principles were subversive. It took awhile, but Christians eventually figured out these were inconsistent with slavery. By the way, what other major teachers or belief systems of the period or before were teaching that slavery was wrong? And was there a non-Christian abolition movement before Christians took up the cause in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries? My history books taught that a Dominican priest, Bartolome de les Casas was the first to get it started, leading to the abolition of slavery in the Spanish colonies in 1545, and that the Quakers got the abolition movement going for Britain and the British colonies in the seventeenth century. We might also ask the intriguing question what would have happened if the Christians had taken up the cause at the time of Jesus? I suspect that there would be no such thing as Christianity for us to talk about today. Memes are often unprincipled, but the ones that survive are practical.

 

Buddha, and therefore many tenets of Buddhism are anti-slavery.
One of the eight businesses a Buddhist should not conduct is human trade. Buddhism predates Christianity by 5 centuries or so.

Slavery was banned on and off in Persia. I know Xerxes (the enemy in the film 300), was against slavery in real life; and freed slaves in areas he conquered.
That was a couple centuries BC, around 300, I think.

 

Good points. I admire Buddhism, although I don't find in it the same active support for society's rejects that brought me to Christianity. Victoria (a Buddhist monk), in Zen at War, argues that Buddhist practice instilled a certain indifference to social problems that contributed to acceptance of militarism. I've noticed this in my Buddhist friends, who laugh at me for getting involved in social causes. Reluctance to interfere with karma can interfere with compassionate activism. (Although I must also give credit to the monks in Burma who resisted the military dictatorship there.) Banning human trafficking as a personal practice is commendable, but it's not exactly condemning slavery as a social practice, is it?

Do you have sources on Xerxes? I know that there has been a lot of Iranian blowback against the film 300, and I'm wondering if this is part of it? Reliable non-Greek historical sources for the period are scarce. Xerxes' reputation, as a result, is that of an oriental despot whose subjects were little better than slaves.

 

I've understood slavery in the Bible as the positions of employer and employee. To the Hebrew mindset, working towards a goal that they did not agree with could be considered slavery. Daniel himself worked for Nebuchadnezzar and did everything he asked for except what went against God's will. In that case, Daniel was being faithful to his employer and in turn faithful to God. Daniel discovered that God is doing the fighting to bring about the kingdom of God by giving ruler-ship to lesser and lesser human kingdoms. So by being faithful to their employers, is like an acceptance that these nations will eventually crumble and be given to whomsoever God gives it to.

Also, Nebuchadnezzar acts as an example of what faithfulness can do in turning the hearts of men towards God. Humans are not the enemy, the enemy is unseen and in the shadows, so faithfulness is a way of trying to rescue those that want to be rescued and that includes everyone. (2 Peter 3:9). Nebuchadnezzar eventually praised Jehovah as being the true God.

 

One source of confusion is that all subjects of the Persian monarch were called slaves. It does appear that the founder of the Persian empire, Cyrus the Great, very popular in Judeo-Christian circles, banned slavery, as well as establishing religious freedom. Did his successors like Xerxes uphold his ban? I'm looking for the evidence. And would those "areas he conquered" be Greek, in which case cynics might suspect a tactical motive in the struggle against Sparta.

 

This is hilarious, you really want to start quoting old testament eh?

He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.-- LEV. 24:16

And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.--LEV 24:23

I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children.-- LEV. 26:22

When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. 27 Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land. 2Kings 24-27

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.-- NUM.15:32-36

YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY THINK THAT YOU CAN QUOTE A BOOK LIKE THIS AND THINK THAT YOU HAVE FOUND A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE IDEA OF SLAVERY!!!

The reason I chose the new testament is precisely because the old testament is a write off in terms of violence and inhumane treatment of others.

 

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.-- NUM 31:15-19

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.--DEU. 22:20-21

 

Like I said some people have no desire to even have a reasonable discussion.

These scriptures do not even mention slavery and have not even the slightest implication of slavery and some how you think they prove something about slavery?

If you want to talk about these scripture then fine, it is your thread but don't just quote some scriptures that have nothing to do with the issue at hand and imply that they show we should discount the scriptures that do apply.

 

So you can quote scriptures. That's pretty good.