Slavery in the Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Rev. Alexander McLeod was among the earliest American Presbyterians in opposing slavery. In 1802 he refused to serve a congregation where there were slaveholders. His stand prompted the Reformed Presbyterians to excommunicate unrepentant slaveholders. Upon receiving word of the Synod's decision, the RP congregation in South Carolina freed their slaves, with their obedience costing them about $500,000 in today's money (and this was probably a small congregation of just 4-6 families).

McLeod's treatise against slavery is online at The Practice of Holding Men in Perpetual Slavery Condemned. This same work is sometimes titled Negro Slavery Unjustifiable.

Obviously, it is extremely difficult to defend certain aspects of Southern slavery, but was excommunication justifiable? Slaveholders appear to have been members in good standing in the Apostolic Church. I'll look over the link at a later time, but I'm curious to see what, in McLeod's mind, was different. My first thought is that it would have been far better for slaveholders to be encouraged to train and prepare slaves to live as free men, with a goal toward them earning their freedom, and admonished to treat them with the respect due to one created in God's image in the mean-time.

?
 
The Rev. Alexander McLeod was among the earliest American Presbyterians in opposing slavery. In 1802 he refused to serve a congregation where there were slaveholders. His stand prompted the Reformed Presbyterians to excommunicate unrepentant slaveholders. Upon receiving word of the Synod's decision, the RP congregation in South Carolina freed their slaves, with their obedience costing them about $500,000 in today's money (and this was probably a small congregation of just 4-6 families).

McLeod's treatise against slavery is online at The Practice of Holding Men in Perpetual Slavery Condemned. This same work is sometimes titled Negro Slavery Unjustifiable.

Obviously, it is extremely difficult to defend certain aspects of Southern slavery, but was excommunication justifiable? Slaveholders appear to have been members in good standing in the Apostolic Church. I'll look over the link at a later time, but I'm curious to see what, in McLeod's mind, was different. My first thought is that it would have been far better for slaveholders to be encouraged to train and prepare slaves to live as free men, with a goal toward them earning their freedom, and admonished to treat them with the respect due to one created in God's image in the mean-time.

?

My point is that Christian charity would require more than merely purchasing their "freedom" and then turning them out into a strange culture without capacity or means to fend for themselves, but it woud also require more than placing them in permanent bondage. Just as a parent rules over a helpless, defenseless child. It isn't to be forever, but it is until a time of training and education is completed, with the goal of a child being able to take care of himself as a responsible adult. The slaveholder would have a right to earn a 'profit' from the work of the slave, just as a parent has a right to 'profit' from the work of a child.

I don't suggest that we should go capture savages and enslave then today, but I can't condemn Christian people for doing then what they did with what was placed upon them. I believe that many Southerners had the best interest of their slaves at heart. They weren't always consistent, but most of our secular histories only record their worst inconsistencies, and not the other aspects.
 
Two kinds of slavery in the Bible still exist in America: the enslavement of certain criminals and of prisoners of war. We just call it "prison" now. The Hebrews didn't have large steel buildings to cage their kidnappers and war prisoners in. They enslaved them instead, which amounts to exactly the same thing without the metal walls.

I take issue with the equation of innocent people who were forced into slavery and those convicted criminals who made the choice to break the law.

I did not equate them. There are multiple practices in the Bible that are called "slavery." I can think of three at least. The two I listed above are the only ones we still have, and as you pointed out, they do not involve the enslavement of innocent people. They involve the enslavement of certain criminals and war prisoners.

The post was just pointing out that not everything in the Bible that is called "slavery" is gone. We still have two forms of it, just in a different way.
 
I Timothy 1:

8Now we know that(R) the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9understanding this, that the(S) law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to(T) sound[c] doctrine, 11in accordance with(U) the gospel of the glory of(V) the blessed God(W) with which I have been entrusted.


That was the old testament...
 
Obviously, it is extremely difficult to defend certain aspects of Southern slavery, but was excommunication justifiable? Slaveholders appear to have been members in good standing in the Apostolic Church. I'll look over the link at a later time, but I'm curious to see what, in McLeod's mind, was different. My first thought is that it would have been far better for slaveholders to be encouraged to train and prepare slaves to live as free men, with a goal toward them earning their freedom, and admonished to treat them with the respect due to one created in God's image in the mean-time.

?

My point is that Christian charity would require more than merely purchasing their "freedom" and then turning them out into a strange culture without capacity or means to fend for themselves, but it woud also require more than placing them in permanent bondage. Just as a parent rules over a helpless, defenseless child. It isn't to be forever, but it is until a time of training and education is completed, with the goal of a child being able to take care of himself as a responsible adult. The slaveholder would have a right to earn a 'profit' from the work of the slave, just as a parent has a right to 'profit' from the work of a child.

I don't suggest that we should go capture savages and enslave then today, but I can't condemn Christian people for doing then what they did with what was placed upon them. I believe that many Southerners had the best interest of their slaves at heart. They weren't always consistent, but most of our secular histories only record their worst inconsistencies, and not the other aspects.

I find your use of the term "savage" to be a curious one.

Though technologically advanced, those who steal or buy other men are much more savage by far.
 
Of course we still have slavery going on!

If I commit murder, I will be held captive in a prison, won't I?

The point is that "slavery" is a very broad term... Don't think that when you read "slave" or "slavery", you should understand always the same thing...
 
I think we, in our day, condemn slavery due to the very negative examples of it in our recent history and the massive political incorrectness of saying something to the effect of "slavery is ok."

Probably what needs to be appreciated is what slavery meant in the biblical world. It did not always have this negative and oppressive connotation. Paul's favourite title for himself was doulos (slave). For some, it may have been considered as a form of employment for the extremely impoverished, much like what child labour may be for the poor in third world countries today. In an ideal world, it would not exist, but the economic situation needs to be understood and appreciated before judging it according to western standards.
 
I think we, in our day, condemn slavery due to the very negative examples of it in our recent history and the massive political incorrectness of saying something to the effect of "slavery is ok."

Probably what needs to be appreciated is what slavery meant in the biblical world. It did not always have this negative and oppressive connotation. Paul's favourite title for himself was doulos (slave). For some, it may have been considered as a form of employment for the extremely impoverished, much like what child labour may be for the poor in third world countries today. In an ideal world, it would not exist, but the economic situation needs to be understood and appreciated before judging it according to western standards.

Recent black slavery was mainly based on the sin of manstealing, which is forbidden by the Law of Moses under death penalty:

Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

That is what black slavery was about in our country and it was hateful to God in every way.
 
I think we, in our day, condemn slavery due to the very negative examples of it in our recent history and the massive political incorrectness of saying something to the effect of "slavery is ok."

Probably what needs to be appreciated is what slavery meant in the biblical world. It did not always have this negative and oppressive connotation. Paul's favourite title for himself was doulos (slave). For some, it may have been considered as a form of employment for the extremely impoverished, much like what child labour may be for the poor in third world countries today. In an ideal world, it would not exist, but the economic situation needs to be understood and appreciated before judging it according to western standards.

Recent black slavery was mainly based on the sin of manstealing, which is forbidden by the Law of Moses under death penalty:

Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

That is what black slavery was about in our country and it was hateful to God in every way.

Amen. This, and every kind of similar act, is a clear violation of God's law.

Back to the OP, with how much confidence can we say that the bible speaks against all kinds of slavery?
 
I don't suggest that we should go capture savages and enslave then today, but I can't condemn Christian people for doing then what they did with what was placed upon them.

The role of a Christian is to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them".Ephesians 5.11

-----Added 11/20/2009 at 03:56:34 EST-----

Back to the OP, with how much confidence can we say that the bible speaks against all kinds of slavery?

Neither the Bible nor the American Constitution is against all kinds of slavery. The only social system that is theoretically against all kinds of slavery is anarchy.

As I have already stated, in any situation where I am deprived of liberty, I can classify it as "slavery".
 
The Bible regulates slavery and nowhere condemns it in and of itself. It isn't rocket science unless one has been so programmed with humanistic, utopian, socialistic, Rousseauian doctrine from people who want to be holier than God that he just can't see anything else. Even the New Testament is clear that slavery isn't evil in and of itself. Paul himself gives instructions for the relationship between slaves and masters. As vocal and tell it like it is as Paul is, certainly he would have said it were a sin if it was. Of course, Paul understood the OT, unlike so many today.

True, there is pagan slavery, just like there's pagan marriage, pagan child-rearing, pagan pedagogy, pagan war theories, etc. We don't call something evil just because it's attended with many evils.

The question isn't whether we will serve. It is who we will serve.

And as long as there are savages, I'm perfectly fine using the term and often. It's a pleasure to use politically incorrect terms.
 
If whore-mongering is a sin, then things associated with whore-mongering, such as owning a prn business would fit. If man-stealing is a sin, then making your profit off of stolen men and women would be a sin.


Thus you would say; that if no theft was involved, then there would be no sin?
 
If whore-mongering is a sin, then things associated with whore-mongering, such as owning a prn business would fit. If man-stealing is a sin, then making your profit off of stolen men and women would be a sin.


Thus you would say; that if no theft was involved, then there would be no sin?

Indentured servanthood seems to be permissible. Southern slavery no.
 
If whore-mongering is a sin, then things associated with whore-mongering, such as owning a prn business would fit. If man-stealing is a sin, then making your profit off of stolen men and women would be a sin.


Thus you would say; that if no theft was involved, then there would be no sin?

Indentured servanthood seems to be permissible. Southern slavery no.

Right. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong (because I haven't studied this in detail), but the slavery that is represented in the Bible always seemed a great deal more like indentured servanthood to me. I have no qualms about saying that southern slavery and the slavery that we practice today is sin. But what is going on in the Bible seems quite different.
 
I can say this with all honesty, if there were a master who would take care of me and my family in exchange for honest labor, I would certainly consider allowing him to drive an awl through my earlobe. Couldn't be worse than the slavery to debt that I am under now.
 
Thus you would say; that if no theft was involved, then there would be no sin?

Indentured servanthood seems to be permissible. Southern slavery no.

Right. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong (because I haven't studied this in detail), but the slavery that is represented in the Bible always seemed a great deal more like indentured servanthood to me. I have no qualms about saying that southern slavery and the slavery that we practice today is sin. But what is going on in the Bible seems quite different.

For Israelites, yes. But those captured in war, or bought from another land, or born to slave parents could be held for life.
 
Indentured servanthood seems to be permissible. Southern slavery no.

Right. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong (because I haven't studied this in detail), but the slavery that is represented in the Bible always seemed a great deal more like indentured servanthood to me. I have no qualms about saying that southern slavery and the slavery that we practice today is sin. But what is going on in the Bible seems quite different.

For Israelites, yes. But those captured in war, or bought from another land, or born to slave parents could be held for life.

But the ability to kill men, women and children also only pertained to Israelites for a time, and no longer applies. So, trying to prove other forms of slavery based on OT Israelite practice is tenous at best.


Here's an interesting read on Irish Slavery and the sale of the Irish that were captured in war: Irish Slavery
 
Is God a sinner?



Lev 25:39 And if thy brother [that dwelleth] by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
Lev 25:40 [But] as an hired servant, [and] as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, [and] shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:
Lev 25:41 And [then] shall he depart from thee, [both] he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
Lev 25:42 For they [are] my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
Lev 25:43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit [them for] a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
 
Pergy, I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was only replying to a question about the nature of slavery in the OT.

It was indentured for Israelites & full-on lifetime slavery for everyone else.

You can work out the "general equity" of that yourself by means of "good & necessary" consequences.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 12:26:37 EST-----

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Slavery IS sinful.

Jon I would rather not, all other things being equal, have a great number of things "done to me", that I may properly "do unto others". The key is the nature of the relationship between myself & that particular "other". I.e employer/employee, parent/child, judge/accused, indigent person/taxpayer, cop/robber, etc.

That verse is not in my opinion applicable to this question.
 
Let's start with the broad concept that people could be bought, sold and owned as property, to be used as a labour force. This is seen in biblical practice, but why not today?

What do you mean "why not today?" Private slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment in the United States, and was replaced with public slavery. The United States claims ownership of its citizens and it not only sells their labor today, but decades if not centuries into the future, for its deficit spending.
 
Jon I would rather not, all other things being equal, have a great number of things "done to me", that I may properly "do unto others". The key is the nature of the relationship between myself & that particular "other". I.e employer/employee, parent/child, judge/accused, indigent person/taxpayer, cop/robber, etc.

That verse is not in my opinion applicable to this question.

Would you want to be held as a slave to another sinful human being under any circumstances?
 
Jon I would rather not, all other things being equal, have a great number of things "done to me", that I may properly "do unto others". The key is the nature of the relationship between myself & that particular "other". I.e employer/employee, parent/child, judge/accused, indigent person/taxpayer, cop/robber, etc.

That verse is not in my opinion applicable to this question.

Would you want to be held as a slave to another sinful human being under any circumstances?

My "wanting" has nothing to do at all with all sorts of involuntary situations that I face every day. Paying 30% of my income to a govt that claimes the right to "punish" me for non-complience, has been credibly compared to the master/slave relationship by many social scientists & economists.

So a plausible (prima fasca) case can be made that I am in fact being `held as a slve to an other sinful human being`.
 
Last edited:
Seems like this one fits in the 'Moses permitted because of the hardness of your heart' category.

Deuteronomy 23:15 'You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.'
 
What do people mean when they say slavery in itself is sinful?

Is it sinful to own a slave? On what terms? On absolute terms of life and death? A lot of slavery was not of the nature of absolute ownership.

You've got to ask what kind of ownership.

In the case of employment, the employer has ownership of some of your time and labour, and sanctions will follow if you don't comply.

Some in employment have been and are more dictatorially treated than some slaves. Because there are abuses in employment does that make employing people, or seeking employment sinful in itself?

On all terms? What if the person wants to be your slave, says he and his family is treated very well, and believes he would be in a worse position as unemployed or in employment?

Is it sinful to be a slave? Is it sinful to want to be a slave?

Or both?

What is the specific thing that makes slavery per se sinful?

See John Murray's "Principles of Conduct"

It's good it's been abolished because it seems open to abuse, although it's still with us in various forms, and employment is also open to abuse!

Maybe everyone should be self-employed.
 
Jon I would rather not, all other things being equal, have a great number of things "done to me", that I may properly "do unto others". The key is the nature of the relationship between myself & that particular "other". I.e employer/employee, parent/child, judge/accused, indigent person/taxpayer, cop/robber, etc.

That verse is not in my opinion applicable to this question.

Would you want to be held as a slave to another sinful human being under any circumstances?

My "wanting" has nothing to do at all with all sorts of involuntary situations that I face every day. Paying 30% of my income to a govt that claimes the right to "punish" me for non-complience, has been credibly compared to the master/slave relationship by many social scientists & economists.

So a plausible (prima fasca) case can be made that I am in fact being `held as a slve to an other sinful human being`.

:amen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top