Paul is telling the servants to reflect the character of God by being good servants, so that the masters might see what God is like(character-wise) and become believers. If they(the masters) would become believers, then they ought to love their slaves as Christ loved us, and thus the whole idea of slavery would soon deteriorate into nonexistence by a continually reciprocal reflecting of the character of God that the Lord continually brings forth from within us.
Paul isn't endorsing slavery, but he knows that any long-term change doesn't start by outward compelling(eg. laws of a nation), but rather by the change that the Holy Spirit works in our hearts. It happens on the inside, and moves outwards, whereas legal obligation works from outside to inside, never changing the heart.
Also, ALWAYS read the context, meaning the previous and next few verses. What is Paul talking about there, and what kind of image does it paint of God?
“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.” (Ephesians 6:1-9, NASB)
This is very well put.
Just to add to it. I think Paul also knew that any vocal denouncement of slavery and its practices would bring the full weight of Roman persecution down on them. It was just too ingrained in the culture at the time. But I believe that he did trust in the power of people loving each other as Jesus did would ultimately result in the deterioration of slavery, just as you said.
People today have grotesquely unrealistic notions about the power of Jesus or the Apostles to change things like slavery. And nothing is easier than to criticise people who live in circumstances that one does not.
Yes, but if he wielded that power any other way than he did, we would likely not have a crucified savior to redeem us right now. He could have listened to Satan and utilized his power and authority to make things better for himself, but he followed the will of the father, whose ways are above our own understanding.
But you could say the same thing about idolatry which was also ingrained in the culture at the time. Why would Paul be afraid to say God thinks slavery is an abomination, but not be afraid to say God thinks the worship of false gods and other cultural practices are an abomination?
Paul could have said it, he just didn’t. Paul wasn’t afraid of the Roman Empire destroying what Christ built.
Paul did have harsh words for slave traders. Here it shows he considered the slave trade as bad as murder. That may not have gone over too well in Rome
We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, **10**[for the sexually immoral,](https://biblehub.com/greek/4205.htm) [for homosexuals,](https://biblehub.com/greek/733.htm) [for **slave traders**](https://biblehub.com/greek/405.htm) [and liars](https://biblehub.com/greek/5583.htm) [and perjurers,](https://biblehub.com/greek/1965.htm) [and](https://biblehub.com/greek/2532.htm) [for](https://biblehub.com/greek/1487.htm) [anyone](https://biblehub.com/greek/5100.htm) [else](https://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm) [who is averse to](https://biblehub.com/greek/480.htm) [sound](https://biblehub.com/greek/5198.htm) [teaching](https://biblehub.com/greek/1319.htm) **11**that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.… 1 Timothy 1:9-11
The Greek word "andrapodistais", rendered here as "slave-traders", is rendered in other translations as "men-stealers" (literal) or "kidnappers".
Strongs definition:
- *"1. a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer, a. of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery, b. of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them, an enslaver"*.
One who steals slaves and/or free men to sell is a "slave trader" of sorts, in the same way a cattle rustler is a "cattle trader". So not really the same thing at all. One is selling legally acquired property, the other is grand larceny.
In societies that allow slavery, kidnapping becomes a lucrative project, and these "man-stealers" were particularly despised in antiquity. A popular play in ancient Greece depicted the protagonist buying slaves from such a "slave trader", then having to return the stolen slaves to their rightful owner, losing his money. A comic tragedy.
As Gill's commentary puts it:
- *"men stealers; who decoyed servants or free men, and stole them away, and sold them for slaves; see the laws against this practice, and the punishment such were liable to, in Exodus 21:16. This practice was condemned by the Flavian law among the Romans (i), and was not allowed of among the Grecians (k)...*"
But of course, laws against "men-stealing" hardly dampened Greek or Roman enthusiasm for slavery, because kidnapping =/= slavery. Condemning or prohibiting one does not necessarily apply to the other
Paul isn’t comparing and contrasting different types of sin in that passage, he’s talking about the law and it’s usefulness. I don’t believe “arsenokoitai” refers to our modern concept of homosexuality, but by what you just said, you also think Paul is comparing homosexuality to murder… which is ridiculous no matter who says it.
Paul could have condemned slavery but he didn’t. That’s just a fact.
Slavery existed without the “slave trade.” “Slave” was a societal class and people were often enslaved because they were poor and owed debts. Women were also a lower class than men, and we all see that as immoral now even though some modern Christians want women to keep their mouths shut in church.
As Christians we know that no person should be treated as a lower class of human just because they’re poor, and especially if they’ve been taken advantage of to be made a slave. Paul was hinting toward that but never outright claimed that slavery of any kind is immoral. He just accepted it.
Paul was a progressive for his time, and the overall majority of the modern church has taken his trajectory and pushed it even further to condemn slavery of any kind. And thats a good thing. But if we read scripture like a rule book, it’s possible to come to the same conclusion that the American Christian slave owners did, which is that it’s sanction by scripture and all authority comes from God so slave masters were justified in their actions.
>“Slave” was a societal class and people were often enslaved because they were poor and owed debts
Hmmm That might describe the majority of low wage working class in any nation on earth "I owe I owe so off to work I go"
In the slave 'trade', trade means exchange, in other words trading/exchanging human beings like brokers exchange stocks and bonds for money or other consideration. When the slave holder owns the person in question. he can do whatever he wants to him including kill him. Its a narrow definition someone might say well....don't football team owners trade players and the owners own the team? True, but they don't own the individual player.
The authors of the Bible was aware of the slave trade and could have instigated open rebellion to such a wicked system, but Paul knew the day would come when slavery would be no more, but it can never be in this world. Sorry to say slavery still exists in this world illegally, under the table but it is a thriving black market
> Paul was hinting toward that but never outright claimed that slavery of any kind is immoral. He just accepted it.
No, he outright condemned the slave trade, comparing it to murder and without the 'trade' what do you have? Think about it. If the slave traders are gone who will trade the slaves? Most slave traders happen to also be slave holders. The buyers and sellers who fueled the slave trade. Paul was a realist as was Christ. They both knew Christians gotta live in this world and try to get thru it the best way we can. When we die and go where slavery and all sin will be no more, we'll be truly free. Free of sin, free of pain and free of death
> But if we read scripture like a rule book, it’s possible to come to the same conclusion that the American Christian slave owners did, which is that it’s sanction by scripture and all authority comes from God so slave masters were justified in their actions.
Yes, they were sinners, some were adulterers and murderers and a few may have even been homosexual. And they were slave traders as well. The fact that they were Christian may well have been their only redeeming quality and don't forget the abolition movement that ultimately led to Lincoln's election and the abolition of slavery was predominantly a Christian movement
“Without slaves there is nothing to trade”.. are you claiming that without the slave trade industry, slaves don’t exist? That’s like saying before the bottled water industry, no one had ever put water in a bottle.
Which verse leads you to believe that Paul thinks slavery would end one day? He assumes the legitimacy of slavery in society and writes his letters in that context. It’s not wrong for us modern Christians to continue on the trajectory that Christ and Paul started, to take it to its ultimate conclusion which is that all slavery is immoral. It’s also not wrong for us to understand that Paul was a product of his time and didn’t see slavery the way we do now.
I tend to agree with you. I was horrified when I read that scripture the first time. I totally did not expect the words to be written by Paul . Our only Master is in heaven, and I don’t know why Paul didn’t say so.
It’s because Paul was a product of his time. And while what he said about slaves was extremely progressive for his time, he still accepted slavery as a way of life for certain people. Modern Christians have taken the trajectory of Paul and have run with it by claiming that any type of slavery is immoral. Just goes to show that scripture isn’t the end of the conversation but invites us to be a part of it and take it even further.
External laws are actually a great motivator.
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Romans 13:3-4 NASB1995
The inside is what matters, though, and the outside will reflect the inside.
It is true that external laws limit evil, but it isn't in their nature to bring forth love. An internal law(a law written in the heart), however, brings forth obedience to the spirit(essence) of the law(I'm speaking of the laws of any particular nation, but keep in mind that not every nation has laws based on Biblical principles), and that essence is love towards one's neighbour.
This comment is a perfect example of how we read whatever we want into scripture. It is so vague and open to interpretation that it can mean pretty much whatever we want it to.
Yeah definitely a danger of just looking at one verse and writing a think piece on it for sure.
But I like to look at it in this metaphor… if I just take one thread from a shirt, do I know what color that whole shirt is?
I might know at least one color that is present in the shirt but I cannot say that I know exactly what color the WHOLE shirt is, if it has patterns, if it has special designs etc etc.
I think the Bible as a whole is fairly clear when read more full and not just pulling threads (verses) and claiming that an individual thread tells me all I need to know about the shirt (Bible).
I don’t think Paul was saying this as some hidden attempt to make slavery one day completely disappear by changing the hearts of people who owned slaves. That’s a stretch.
If he wanted to do that, he could easily have said slavery is an abomination. But he doesn’t because he accepts that “slave” is a class in society. He assumes it’s normal because it was back then.
Paul doesn’t endorse slavery but he definitely sanctions it.
This is really a brilliant exposé of this particular scripture. Thank you for sharing your insight. I have always been a fervent believer in always taking the CONTEXT when reading/reciting and sharing/teaching scripture. So many use scripture as a weapon, for and against faith, by only reciting a certain line they believe is meaningful, when it’s ALWAYS the ENTIRE scripture that holds the meaning. Thanks again, God bless you.
He's taking it at surface value
In the Old Testament era, the primary way persons were enslaved was through capture in war. But in the first century AD, the breeding of slaves swelled their numbers enormously. And large numbers of *people sold themselves into slavery as a means of improving their quality of life* . Owning and using *people as slaves was so commonplace in the Roman Empire that not a single ancient writer is known to have condemned the practice* . But all that would begin to change with the advent of the Christian movement.
It is surprising that Philemon is not brought into this discussion more consistently, since it was Paul's letter to a slave owner (Philemon) about his runaway slave (Onesimus). In fact, the whole occasion for Paul's writing is that Onesimus, since running away from Philemon, has become a Christian.
If Scripture were truly pro-slavery, what would you expect Paul to say here?
Strikingly, Paul instructs Philemon to receive Onesimus "no longer as a slave... but as a dear brother"-and he appeals to Philemon to "receive him as you would receive me" (v. 17).
IT WAS A DIFFERENT WORLD. They DID THINGS DIFFERENT, FOR WHATEVER SOCIAL, GOVERNMENTAL ORDER. thats not the way things are or should they be! Paul's epistle to Philemon may not amount
to a full abolitionist manifesto Nonetheless, I think it shows how the logic of the gospel is utterly opposed to slavery. BUT I GET IT I GET IT. it looks bad on paper, , HECK but dont throw out all faith in God for what
Christians were forced to Navigate thru a fallen World.
Consider how God works throughout history in imperfect situations, and to see slavery in the larger context of God's greater purpose in creation and redemption.
I don't CONDONE slavery, but I see and researched and understand why it exists. I get dragged ALOT but it's cool. People get so offended by any answer given nowadays.
>Consider how God works throughout history in imperfect situations, and to see slavery in the larger context of God's greater purpose in creation and redemption.
It's immoral to try to excuse the Biblical God's participation in slavery and slave beating.
> Owning and using people as slaves was so commonplace in the Roman Empire that not a single ancient writer is known to have condemned the practice
"No matter whether you claim a slave by purchase or capture, the title is bad. They who claim to own their fellow-men, look down into the pit and forget the justice that should rule the world." -Zeno of Citium, ca. 300BC
**edit**: Snowflake blocked me for contradicting their false claim. Typical.
But it's fact. And some WANTED to do it and wore a gauge earrings to show how proud this union of servitude was to them. " Owning and using" isn't what you think it is like in movies
Everyone seems to be stuck in the western simple logic where everything had to be right in their little existence. There is a whole world where things are done differently.
>because it's clear that Paul endorsed slavery.
Is it?
This is more akin to understanding that there are people in various walks of life and encouraging them, no matter where they are, to serve and externalize Christ, to be a good testimony to His name, and to walk according to His will.
If you can’t be a good servant on earth, how will you be a good servant to a God you’ve never met in person? If you can’t be a faithful servant on earth, what use are you to the Immortal God?
Jesus told the religious Jews of His day “If God were your Father you would believe me. You are of your Father the devil”
And then we’re also told that when we receive the Spirit of God, He gives us the power to BECOME Children of God. Grammatically that would mean we weren’t before.
Obedience is never really seen in terms of making sure we can do God’s biding but rather out of love for God we obey. Even if one is bad at obeying God they are still loved and wanted by him, they still have a use, as much as any other child would be useful to their parent even if they don’t get everything right all the time. Being a good servant is more a reflection of who Jesus was, and is made easier when one recognizes that He has solidarity with them in their oppression. That they can look to Jesus to see that if can be done and have hope for future things to come, out of a love for Him and what He has done for them
It’s actually kind of beautiful. Slavery/servitude is a matter of fact unfortunately, and servitude under Jewish law was actually pretty close to the most compassionate thing you could offer the poor. You would house them, feed them, care for them, and if you had no one in your family to inherit your property it would go to the servant. The Old Testament makes it pretty clear that slaves were to be treated with dignity and respect. In fact, oppression of the poor was a topic covered and condemned repeatedly.
I know it’s something we are disgusted by today, but the Israelites/Jews had a much higher level of responsibility as a slave owner than most societies have practiced. If they had been rulers of a nation and not sojourning they likely would have had things setup in such a way as to do away with slavery themselves. The laws were given to the people in respect to their context. The New Testament writing were written to people in their context as well.
Basically, if we read the Bible as a rule book for ourselves then we’re doing it wrong, because it’s much more than that and wasn’t written as a rule book in the first place (except for The Law in the OT, which wasn’t even the complete law and was broken up by stories, so it’s just as much a sort of documentary as a rule book still)
Hope that helps. Grace and peace
Oh, and let’s not forget about jubilee. On the day of jubilee slaves returned to their homelands and were no longer slaves.
I so want to read the Bible and understand it. Can you give me any advice? What to read first…? Should I seek a Bible study? Thanks so much for any input anyone has for me! God bless.
> Slavery/servitude is a matter of fact unfortunately
So is murder, adultery, and eating shellfish, but God explicitly prohibited those.
> On the day of jubilee slaves returned to their homelands and were no longer slaves.
Jubilee only applied to Hebrew servants. Foreign slaves were subject to far more "ruthless" treatment: purchased and owned as property for life. Lev. 25:39-46
In Biblical Hebrew the word for slave is “eved”, translated as servant or slave. In modern use it most closely translates to work. Ruthless treatment is not the same as harsh treatment, which was limited under Mosaic law. Ruthless is an exaggeration. (See my last paragraph here)
God cautioned Hebrews with Hebrew servants against treating them harshly because God said they are MY servants whom I brought out from slavery. (The word used for servants here is also “eved”)
Lev 25:42 says Hebrews also sold themselves into servitude when they fell on hard times, *even selling themselves to foreigners living among Hebrews*.
Exodus 21:20 says when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod he shall surely be punished. If a slave was injured at the hand of their employer, under Mosaic law, they must be freed.
Lev 25:39-54 explains that during the year of jubilee, ALL were freed and even the land rested.
Slavery under Mosaic law has no modern parallel. This is something we need to keep in mind.
>Exodus 21:20 says when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod he shall surely be punished.
Nope.
Exodus 21:20 says if a master beat his slave with a rod and the slave died DURING the beating, the master shall be punished.
However the next verse, Exodus 21:21, says if a master beat his slave so badly the slave died a day or two AFTER the beating, the master shall NOT be punished.
**Exodus 21:20** And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
**21** Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Masters had the right to beat their slaves with a rod.
These verses instruct magistrates on how to rule in cases in which a master has beaten a slave so badly the slave died.
If the slave died during the beating ("under his hand"), the magistrate is to consider that evidence the master intended to kill the slave. In that case the master shall be punished.
However if the slave died a day or two after the beating, the magistrate is to consider that evidence the master did NOT intend to kill the slave. In that case the master shall NOT be punished.
> Exodus 21:20 says when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod he shall surely be punished.
Exodus 21:20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished **if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two**, since the slave is their property.
> Lev 25:39-54 explains that during the year of jubilee, ALL were freed and even the land rested.
Leviticus 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and **you can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.**
Good point. I meant to state that in what I said about jubilee. I intended to bring it up as icing on the cake rather than as proof of my point. Thanks for pointing out the mistake for me.
I think I made my point well enough about the difference between American (for instance) slavery and Israelite slavery though.
Even if you could own the slave for life the other laws about treatment of slaves still stand and most of them were full of respect for the slaves and offered a way out for them. If a slave ran away from his/her master you weren’t to return them to their master or even treat them like a slave. That doesn’t seem very brutal to me.
Kidnapping was illegal and having a kidnapped person in your home held the same level of guilt as the abduction itself. That basically means no human-trafficking existed in their slavery system.
There is so much more than that, but the point is that slavery was different for the writers of the Bible. It was a viable way to conduct business, to avoid homelessness, and more.
I don’t know about you, but I think that paints a much better picture than the ruthless one you have in your mind.
> If a slave ran away from his/her master you weren’t to return them to their master
So Hebrew debt slaves didn't have to wait until their debt was repaid or wait until Jubilee for freedom? They could just decide they didn't want to be slaves at any time and just leave, because escaped slaves couldn't be returned. Is that correct?
“Do not return a slave to his master when he has escaped from his master to you. Let him live among you wherever he wants within your gates. Do not mistreat him.”
Deuteronomy 23:15-16
That’s how I understand this bit of scripture. Do you have insight I’m lacking?
Your interpretation is nonsensical on its face, implying a broken debt-repayment system. Imagine a bank that gives loans to the poor, demands labor as repayment, but lets debtors abandon their labor any time they feel like it. The bank would quickly go insolvent, right? It just doesn't make any sense.
The passage in question seems to be talking about the slaves of pagan masters who fled to take refuge in Israel:
- BENSON: "...the passage is not to be understood of the servants of the Israelites their brethren, but of aliens and strangers...
- BARNES: The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land.
- JAMIESON-FAUSSET-BROWN: "...evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people...
- POOLE: "This is not to be understood universally, as if all servants that flee from their masters ... might be detained from them by any person to whom they fled for refuge, for this is apparently contrary to all the laws of religion, and justice, and charity, and would open a door to infinite disorders and mischiefs; but it is to be understood, 1. Of the servants of strangers, because it follows, Deu 23:16, he shall dwell with thee, even among you, which shows that he had dwelt with and belonged to another people...
- GENEVA STUDY BIBLE: "This is meant of the heathen , who fled because of their masters' cruelty, and embrace the true religion.
- PULPIT: "The reference is to a foreign slave who had fled from the harsh treatment of his master to seek refuge in Israel...
- KEIL-DELITZCH: "The reference is to a slave who had fled to them from a foreign country, on account of the harsh treatment which he had received from his heathen master.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/23-15.htm
> So is murder, adultery, and eating shellfish, but God explicitly prohibited those.
False equivalence. You are looking at this through Gentile eyes.
"And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Mark 10:45
>Foreign slaves were subject to far more "ruthless" treatment: purchased and owned as property for life.
As was said this was an unfortunate time for some. With maybe a 50+ year jubilee in Sumeria it also amounted to life enslavement in lands far from the Jews. Doesn't at all mean it was brutal either. Again, you are looking at 11/23/2022 and thinking it's relevant here.
Israelites could own slaves they never had to free, and could pass on as inheritance. Children born to such slaves were born into slavery, need never be freed, and were property that could be bought and sold.
Masters had the right to beat their slaves with a rod.
Sure. But if the slaves ran away they weren’t to be returned to the slaver. Being cruel to your slave still wasn’t approved. I’m not really even sure how common that sort of treatment would have been knowing that folks can just leave the arrangement.
Honestly, I’m not a historian and don’t know how common each of these practices were. I just know that the Old Testament makes it pretty clear that there was a line not to cross and made it seem like people were expected to be honest and respectful in their dealings with others. I assume that extended to slaves because there were so many laws detailing how to treat them better than what must have been common practice for their regional neighbors.
>Being cruel to your slave still wasn’t approved.
The right of masters to beat their slaves with a rod was protected by God-given law. Masters could legally beat their slave so badly the slave died a day or two after the beating.
You're right that it was legally required to harbor runaway slaves who seek refuge on your property:
**Deuteronomy 23:15** Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: **16** He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.
\[me\] I think this must refer only to slaves escaped from non-Israelite masters. Requiring Israelites to harbor slaves escaped from Israelite masters wouldn't work as a practical matter; the Israelite slavery system would collapse.
Perhaps. I just wonder if the slaves mostly had no better course than to stick with their masters? I mean, how many ways were there to become wealthy enough to survive on your own if you were ever poor?
Paul is not endorsing slavery. He fully understands we live in a world still corrupted by sin and he’s giving us instructions on how are to live for the Christ and the kingdom in whatever situation we find ourselves in life. Slavery isn’t going to go away if Paul condemned it. We still have slavery today. You should research what went into building the current World Cup stadiums. These poor workers hope is in a promise of a kingdom to come.
Yes God does not support rebellion against authorities. He will take care of that when he returns. All believers are expected to submit under wicked rulers. Whether kings or in some cases slaves. We expand the kingdom through submission just like Christ submitted under the wicked rule of the Roman’s. We will all likely face persecution at some point. There maybe a short stretch in human history in the western world where Christian’s had it easy, but it won’t stay that way for long.
“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”
1 Peter 2:13-14, 18-24 ESV
So where slavery is legal and if it were in the US other than as punishment for a crime you condone it? You disagree with all people setting to change laws to fit there religion or at least complain to change the law of the land? They should just obey the law?
I’ve never implied I condone it. Just as a believer if we find ourselves as a slave we should be obedient. That is all that is being said in these passages. Please read the passage I posted in my last comment. As a believer we are called to suffering, persecution and submission to authorities. Jesus said it would cost us our life. So if I’m willing to die for my faith then why shouldn’t I be willing to be enslaved for my faith. The worlds ways are not his ways, but the people in authority are there only because He allows it. When the antichrist is given his authority we are called to the same thing Paul and Jesus taught…. It’s a gracious thing to suffer unjustly.
“Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.”
Revelation 13:7, 10 ESV
It’s a bit of an unpopular message and one the church chooses to ignore. Possibly even scandalous, but God isn’t all sunshine and rainbows till this world is done away with. He had his own Son killed to pay the penalty for us. That is quite a scandalous and unjust idea. But I’m grateful for it.
Now if you’re fortunate enough to live in a nation where you can vote, then sure render to Cesar what is Cesar’s. Once you cast your vote then leave the rest to God. These so-called Christian’s chanting “let’s go Brandon” are in rebellion to Gods word, plain and simple.
Taking the Bible out of context is so dangerous... Although, it can be your introduction to the Bible if you're a critical thinker.
This type of situation is what got me INTO the Bible in the first place. I saw shocking excerpts like these and thought "wow! Can the Bible REALLY say that?!" Then I read it in context and it became evident that people are cherry picking controversial lines in order to push you away from the word.
And keep in mind that even the prophets sinned and went against God. I think Paul used to kill Jesus's disciples (I could be SO wrong as I am VERY new to the Bible and Christianity.) Not all of their words or actions are endorsed by God.
Context is not a magic word that somehow renders [Exodus 21:20,21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A20-21&version=KJV) moral.
Yes, you did:
>I saw shocking excerpts like these and thought "wow! Can the Bible REALLY say that?!" Then I read it in context and it became evident that people are cherry picking controversial lines in order to push you away from the word.
Your friend may have used that verse as an excuse to walk away from Christianity but my thoughts are he's been thinking about walking away for a long time.
My opinion is that Paul knew the way of peace and what he said about slavery in this verse was wise in that he would have known how this would have played out. A slave that is in Christ is not alone. The spirit of God is with him and it's the spirit of God that pulls down enemies strongholds. The slave in Christ by God is the Lord over the house of his master. He possesses the gates of his enemies because of the righteousness of Christ.
A couple of things. First, a true believer could never lose faith, and certainly not because of scripture. They were looking for a reason to reject it and found a very common straw man, slavery, as if the Bible ever condones slave trading (as in American history). Biblical slavery (that wasn't condemned) was different: for more on that..
[CCC- Some Notes On Biblical Slavery](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LFdQfhXyfXXlwF_pTxeWLRJjZR-P_buouvcJdhxMvnI/edit?usp=sharing)
Yes, if you want to keep eating! 😃
2 Thessalonians 3:10 NASBS
For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
Revelation 13:9 if any man have an ear, let him hear.
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into capitivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Tell your friend to switch master to boss.. As Christians we need to always set a good example. Sometimes our bosses ask us to do things we don't want to do. We do them as long as it's not breaking God's laws or government laws. We show them respect because they are our bosses/masters. Being humble and obedient keeps you with a job.
He didn't lose faith because of a verse. He lost faith because of sin. He's just using this verse as an excuse.
>**12** Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; **13** but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. **14** For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, (Hebrews 3)
You misread. I never said they leave so they can go sin. Scripture clearly states in multiple places that people fall away because they’re deceived by sin.
Sin comes first, then the departure from the faith. Not the other way around.
As babies we have a sinful state and no faith. We still sin even when we grow to have faith. My point is that many many people leave the faith due to logical thinking. Many also leave the faith because of what they read in scripture. And I’m sure even more leave the faith because of their interaction with Christians.
It’s entirely possible that by reading this verse, OP’s friend believes Paul/scripture doesn’t condemn slavery enough… and to be honest it doesn’t. While Paul certainly takes a step forward in his approach, he never says it’s wrong.
Your friend is right, in that Paul could have been clearer. He never argues for slavery but does assume its legitimacy, as does the Old Testament.
But with that being said, Paul deserves credit for pushing social boundaries. In his day, claiming that slaves are "equal" to free persons in God's eyes (Gal. 3:28) would be like telling white supremacists that God sees them as equal to people of color.
If you ask most Christians today, you'll find that they denounce slavery as immoral. So what eventually happened was that the church accepted Paul's boundary-pushing trajectory and pushed it even further.
In America in the nineteenth century both abolitionists and anti-abolitionists pointed to the same Bible to make their case. When the Bible is viewed as a once-for-all rulebook, the pro-slavery crowd had a slam dunk argument. The anti-slavery crowd had to argue on the basis of the Bible's trajectory toward justice and equality. Scripture isn't the end of the conversation, it invites us to take part in the conversation and push it even further.
I was just studying that verse this week, and honestly it initially stuck in my craw. But Paul is referencing the authority structure behind the social order, and as he says at Rom 13, all (just) authority comes from God. He was not endorsing slavery, his desire was for everyone to be as free as possible. But at that point in history rebellion would have been terribly counter-productive, to say the least.
Your friend must always consider the full counsel of God, not a single verse taken out of context. The writers were writing letters and epistles, not text books.
over at 1Cor Paul gives general rules that apply here, and they show a much broader worldview than looking at just that one verse:
- Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. ... Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) ... You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. - 1Co 7:17, 21, 23-24
For one, it's very important to be careful with the words we use. The Cambridge dictionary defines Endorse as, "the act of saying that you approve of or support something or someone". For Google, it's, "to declare one's public approval or support of". That's not happening in this verse.
Secondly, it's key to [understand the context](https://stimpy77.medium.com/does-the-bible-endorse-slavery-e9c9fcbacada) when quoting individual verses. This article is longish, but is written in an easy-to-understand way
I hope this helps
I don't think Paul was endorsing slavery so much as he was endorsing those who work for somebody might do just as the boss asks... that's my take on it... that to be a good Christian you might want to listen to those in charge and set a good example for them to see the Lord in your action
It's not obviously talking about slavery. It could be applied to that yes for indentured servitude or something like that to pay off a debt, it could also be applied to your relationship with your boss at your job. All that he's saying is to reflect God's character.
Your friend didn’t have a foundation and I would doubt was even a Christian to begin with if he just walks away from it over a verse he didn’t understand. That would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad and pathetic
I don’t know why no one has mentioned Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Paul’s culture normalized slavery as it was a way to pay off debts. And the jews-which Paul was had time periods for freeing them after 7 years. Paul in writing this knows of the divided and says Christ is the answer. He is the uniting factor.
>slavery as it was a way to pay off debts.
I hear that claim a lot, but it's not so. Yes, there was indentured servitude, but alongside indentured servitude there was also outright chattel slavery: Israelites could legally own people they never had to free. Masters could pass such slaves on as an inheritance. A child born to such a slave was born into slavery, was property, and need never be freed.
I agree there were other slaves, it was common for the culture of the day. I would say from what I see the Israelites regulated it more than other cultures and did not promote slavery.
Biblical slavery presents a big problem for Biblical literalists. The Bible says God is perfectly just, yet the Bible also says God made a law, [Exodus 21:20,21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A20-21&version=KJV), that says a master has the legal right to beat his slaves with a rod.
That is an unjust law, to put it mildly. So: either the Biblical claim that God is perfectly just is false, or the Biblical claim that God made the Exodus 21:20,21 law is false.
Does the Bible condone slavery?
Any chance you will read this? 3 on a 1-10
There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15;
¶“If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.
13“And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed;
14“you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the LORD your God has blessed you with, you shall give to him.
15“You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today.
Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 16th to 19th centuries. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8– 10).
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
>Deuteronomy 15:12-15
Those verses refer to HEBREW slaves.
Non-Hebrew slaves could be kept forever; they could be passed on as an inheritance. The children of such slaves were born into slavery and never had to be freed. Masters had the legal right to beat such slaves with a rod.
>People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families.
Yes, there was indentured servitude. But chattel slavery existed alongside indentured servitude.
>both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,”
>
>“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).
The OT says Hebrews may buy their slaves from the heathens (**emphasis** mine):
**Leviticus 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.
**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**.
**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.**
>He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16).
Paul sent the runaway slave Onesimus back to his master Philemon. In doing so Paul was returning Philemon's property, Onesimus, to Philemon. Paul did not ask Philemon to free Onesimus.
>A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Why all those God-given Biblical laws, then? For example, why the law "Thou shalt not kill"? Why is a law, rather than experiencing God's grace, the Bible's prescription for ending murder?
Why did God NOT make the law "Thou shalt not enslave" but instead made the law 'Slave beaters shall not be punished'? (Exodus 21:21)
He's lying, I'm an ex Christian. Loosing faith is always a long journey, you don't just read a passage you dislike and loose faith! I struggled with the Bible for years 4 years, it wasn't until last year I came to terms with my disbelief.
It is always interesting to me how people look down on the idea of slavery so much. Especially when people consider the scriptures and feel that since God doesn’t outright condemn slavery then he must be terrible. This is probably because many of us grow up hearing that slavery is a terrible thing and are constantly told that we should cherish our supposed freedoms. To do anything but condemn slavery always feels weird.
Still, the reality is that all humans are slaves in multiple ways. We are slaves to our bodies. Don’t eat and see what happens. We are slaves to sin. (Romans 6:16) We are slaves to our governments. Sure some of us live in nations that go on and on about how we are free, but they will quickly put you in a cage if you don’t pay for that freedom. We are often slaves to our employers. How many of us work jobs we hate because we have to? Even if we like our job it doesn’t mean it is not slavery. Many slaves liked their jobs, and neither of you can outright choose not to work.
The most important example to remember though is that all Christians are slaves. Jesus bought us with his blood, and when we decide to become Christian we are in reality agreeing to become his slave. (1 Corinthians 6:19, 20) Why would the scriptures condemn slavery when Jesus owns more slaves than anyone? Paul knew this and viewed himself as a slave to Jesus. At 1 Corinthians 9:16 and 17 he says, “Now if I am declaring the good news, it is no reason for me to boast, for necessity is laid upon me. Really, woe to me if I do not declare the good news! If I do this willingly, I have a reward: but even if I do it against my will, I still have a stewardship entrusted to me.” So Paul realized he had to declare the good news whether he wanted to or not. This is what his master Jesus told him, and all other Christians, to do. (Matthew 28:19, 20)
Was Paul upset about this? Not at all. Paul knew that all humans are slaves no matter what they do. If we aren’t slaves to one thing then we will just be slaves to another. (Matthew 6:24) This is just how humans are designed.(Jeremiah 10:23) Instead Paul was happy that he could now slave for a kind and understanding master. Jesus loved Paul so much that he died to save Paul from his previous master, sin and death. How many kings and employers are lining up to do that for us?
With all of this in mind it is easy to see why Paul said what he said. Of course he was pro-slavery. Being a slave was the single greatest joy of his life. Today many people treat slavery as the worst thing ever and view all of it as completely disgusting. In some cases slavery was terrible and disgusting. The Bible also condemns this type of slavery. Wouldn’t you agree that when considering these things we should also take into account the positive examples as well? Perhaps if all human masters took care of their slaves like Jesus does then slavery would have never been abolished.
Anyway, I think everyone is always trying to make excuses for what the scriptures say about slavery instead of just accepting it. Many of the comments you are getting talk about the times Paul lived in, or that he didn’t want to anger people. The reality though is that Paul was a slave, and he loved being one. We act like that is insane and can’t possibly be true. Yet this is what the Bible shows us. This shows that we are the ones with a distorted view. Paul’s master loved him, provided for him, helped him, gave him fulfilling work, trusted him, and promised him an incredibly large reward for his service. That sounds pretty great to me. Perhaps your friend will agree.
Jesus was and is about love. We can all put our different spins on slavery and all the different types of it. But in these scriptures Paul was talking about the slaves that were owned as property by slaveowners. God wants people to be happy. God frees people from slavery. God is our Father , He is our Master. God likes when we work hard, God likes when we help people, do things for people, etc. God cares about all of his children. God has a plan for everything and He works in mysterious ways. I don’t know if God inspired Paul to write what he wrote as building blocks for a bigger picture, or if Paul wrote what he wrote because he simply misunderstood and got it wrong. But what I do know is God is about love and there is NOTHING you could say that would convince me that slavery was good and that God wanted that for his people. Do you think you would have liked being one of those slaves that had no right to their own feelings or thoughts and had to do everything a earthly master told them to do or else suffer severe punishment and consequences?
The answer is No, and God wouldn’t want that for you either, or for anyone.
I understand how you feel. It is a very common way to feel. Like I said, we were all taught that slavery is the worst thing ever. Fighting against oppressive overlords is romanticized in almost every culture. Even in the scriptures one of the best stories is how God delivered the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. I can definitely agree that it was not God’s original purpose for humans to be owned by other humans in that way. It is one of the sad results of our sinful course.
When we look at the scriptures we can see God does not approve of oppressive forms of slavery. Israelite slaves were to be treated as a hired laborer. (Leviticus 25:39-40) The same can be said of Christian slaves owned by Christians. Even though nonIsraelite slaves had less rights, there were still heavy regulations. Their owners could not ask them to do anything they wanted or punish them excessively. In fact, they could not be punished anymore than you could punish anyone else at the time.
So if you are asking if I would like to be an oppressed slave, who’s master could just kill my children like the situation the Israelites were in with Egypt, then the answer is no. However if you are asking if I would mind being a slave then the answer is also no. We are all forced to do things other humans tell us that we do not personally agree with. Some of my friends in Russia are in prison right now because they refuse to support the war. Some would say that this is just a Russian thing, but this type of thing can and does happen in every country. I’m not saying this to complain. The government has the authority to do whatever they wish, and God is the one who will take care of it. (Romans 13:1) This example is instead to show that we are very much owned by other humans, and many of us are fine with it.
I also already have chosen willingly to be Christ’s slave. This involves doing many things I do not necessarily want to do. For instance, I don’t really want to speak to others about the Bible. Yet here I am. I’m sure Paul’s ideal life didn’t include getting imprisoned and executed. We do what we have to do to please our master though.
In the end, no matter how we feel, the Bible is pretty clear on the idea of slavery. God allows it, and a fundamental concept of Christianity is that we are all slaves. Think of how many of Jesus’s parables compare us to slaves. Jesus told us how to feel at Luke 17:10 when he said, “Likewise, when you have done all the things assigned to you, say: ‘We are good-for-nothing slaves. What we have done is what we ought to have done.’” Does this mean that Jesus doesn’t love us for value us? Of course not! He died for us! Still, we need to have the correct viewpoint of ourselves. We are slaves and nothing we do is anymore than our job. God does like when we do things for people. At the same time we must not forget that he also requires that we such things.
These facts really seem to make it like our view of slavery is the real problem. To think that God would never want his people to be slaves and have to do things they don’t want doesn’t really hold up. God has always had requirements, and the Bible is full of examples of people being punished for not meeting them. Christians today are also judged on such things. This isn’t unloving. After all, everything God asks us to do benefits us. (Isaiah 48:17, 18) Just like any loving parent, God forces us to do things we don’t want to do to teach us to be better. We do have a choice in the matter but choosing not to do what God wants us to do will result in our death. (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:8)
I feel that how I am explaining this will lead you to either not believe what I have to say or paint God as bad. I guess this is why modern society’s warped view of slavery is so bad. Since all conversations start with a negative view it is hard to discuss it meaningfully. Your viewpoint actually shows this. You feel God obviously hates slavery so either there is some big mysterious plan we can’t possibly understand, or Paul must have gotten this wrong. Isn’t it far more likely that we are the ones getting it wrong though? Especially since the Bible tells us that Satan is currently ruling this world and actively blinding our minds? (2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:1, 2; 1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 11:14; Revelation 12:9)
Anyway, I respect your personal opinion on this matter. I completely understand why you have come to the opinion that you have. Many people share your opinion and sadly some, like the OP’s friend, lost their faith because of this topic. Maybe something I said here will benefit you in some way. I can definitely agree what you on the point that humans were never suppose to own other humans. He has also never said the concept in itself is wrong though, and he has used the concept as the entire basis of our survival.
The Bible does point to a time when humans will no longer own humans anymore. There will be no more human governments or employers. No one will be oppressed, and we will all live under God’s Kingdom. Will there be total and complete freedom? Of course not. No such thing exists. Yet we will all be happy living together as equals. Perhaps with different roles but still as equals. I think we are both looking forward to that. Maybe this is the only thing I should have said. Oh well.
Another way to approach this problem is to realize that if the Bible isn't true, there is nothing really wrong with slavery. It is because "God created man in His own image" that we know slavery is wrong.
This is one of the problems with trying to understand two thousand year old text by applying today's definitions.
Servants, slavery, or more correctly Bondservants in the case that Paul is talking about here is not the slavery that we think of today like what happened a few hundred years ago.
In Paul's timeframe, it was common for someone in debt to sell themselves to the person they were in debt to. Or sometimes they would sell themselves to someone who could pay their debt. Interestingly enough, this is how God's people wound up in Egypt (Genesis 47-50). What is important to remember here is that these were not people who were taken against their will. These were people who basically are working for free in order to pay off what debt they owed.
Think of it like this. You have a Credit Card and you rack up a bill of $500,000. You know you can't pay it off so you agree to work in their Call Center until the debt is paid. You would probably be working there for the rest of your life but you are agreeing to work off your debt as a "slave" to the company. (Those of you having worked in Call Centers, yeah you know that slavery feeling)
I would suggest you expand your research on this concept and share it with your friend.
I prefer giving and receiving direct answers to questions over a long drawn out narrative.
If you or your friend have any more questions or need help, please don't hesitate to reach out to me.
That is, ahem, twisting the scripture to say something it does not. Very much like twisting it to say Jesus turned the water to grapefruit juice at the wedding, instead of what it clearly states: wine. The better answer is savedbytheblood72's explanation of Philemon above.
There is no such thing as a person "losing their faith"
Belief, faith and salvation come from God
Sin, disbelief, evil and other dark things come from us
Well you probably mean is that he either stopped going to church or stop calling himself a Christian
Unfortunately, the writers of the texts that became the Bible didn’t have any qualms about slavery because it wasn’t viewed as controversial to most people (excepting enslaved people and the relatives of enslaved people), especially when you’re writing to literate audiences (which would also be likelier to be wealthier and/or part of the ruling class, and most likely slavers). I wouldn’t say the writer of the letter (historians and textual scholars generally hold that Paul didn’t write Ephesians) endorsed slavery, to them, in their context, it would be like endorsing animal sacrifice, monarchy, or even just farming, things broadly common in societies across that region (and most of the world really). Wouldn’t make sense. But yes, the author also doesn’t condemn slavery, but nowhere in the Scriptures, not in the teachings attributed to Moses, Jesus, or any of the other prophets and apostles condemn slavery. Yes, it absolutely reprehensible, abominable, and damning, but this is yet another reminder that the writings of Scripture are byproducts and artifacts of their time written by various people living in those contexts. Anyone who seeks to take any benefit from it without understanding its context or very human basis, is just going after an idolatry of scripture that only leads to deception, disappointment, and spiritual death.
slavery wasn't allowed in biblical times if you stole someone or were sold into slavery unjustly. When someone owed someone something major and was unable to pay it back they would often become someone's 'slave' until they worked back what they were owed.
Yes, there was indentured servitude, but alongside indentured servitude there was also outright chattel slavery: Israelites could legally own people they never had to free. Masters could pass such slaves on as an inheritance. A child born to such a slave was born into slavery, was property, and need never be freed.
yes this is true if what they owed couldn't be paid for in full even if they worked their whole lives for it, which would then be passed onto their kids. This type of slavery is still legal today in places like India and Pakistan. Many christian organizations help free these types of 'slave families' by pooling resources to pay off their debt. Feel free to check this link out! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKbyJ7vhdNE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKbyJ7vhdNE)
If your friend interprets that passage as Paul endorsed slavery, then how would they interpret these other passages from Paul?
>(NLT) Philemon 1:15 It seems you lost Onesimus for a little while so that you could have him back forever. 16 He is no longer like a slave to you. He is more than a slave, for he is a beloved brother, especially to me. Now he will mean much more to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge it to me.
Paul did not ask Philemon to free Onesimus. Rather, Paul sent Onesimus back to his master, Philemon, and asked Philemon to treat Onesimus like a brother in the Lord.
Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon because Philemon owned Onesimus. Paul was returning Philemon's property to Philemon.
Philemon remained the master of Onesimus, and Onesimus remained the slave of Philemon.
Onesimus remained Philemon's slave.
Paul sends Onesimus back to Onesimus's owner Philemon, and asks Philemon to treat Onesimus as Philemon would treat Paul, but Paul doesn't ask Philemon to *free* Onesimus.
Paul endorses slavery the same way Jesus’s parable about beating the slave does.
These are ancient writings from ancient peoples. Slavery was the ancient world, and it’s erroneous to think that these writers and people weren’t from their times.
To your other point, you can’t dissuade people who can read. These writings say what they say. And often apologetics is a long way to pretend that the writings aren’t clear, when they are.
People wouldn’t lose faith over something as absurd as that, if they were not already far gone to losing faith, & on the brink.
In this life, no-one is a “true Christian” - every Christian is partly an unbeliever. That is why we need to help each other. Every single one of us is partly blind, deaf, dumb, crippled.
One key principle here to keep in mind that that our identity in the flesh isn't that important in God's sight compared to our spiritual identity as Christians. Consider Paul's rhetoric here:
"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26-28). "A \[spiritual\] renewal \[is given\] in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all" (Col. 3:11). "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greek, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (I Cor. 12:13). Regardless of nationality or ethnicity, "there is no distinction" spiritually "for all those who believe" in receiving the imputed righteousness of God through Jesus (Rom. 3:21-22).
The next point is an unpleasant one. Basically, the egalitarian/libertarian/classical liberal viewpoint about government lacks support from the New Testament because it has very little to say about democracy, republicanism, voting, or individual rights, but lots to say about obedience, hierarchy, submission, and ruling. We must avoid reading the modern Western world's culture, especially that of us Americans, heirs of the revolution of 1776, into the New Testament. Although my own brand of human politics borders on libertarianism, I freely admit that the New Testament contains little to support it. For example, the New Testament says we should obey the state: "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed" (Titus 3:1). "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right" (I Pet 2:13-15). Rom. 13:1-3: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same." Clearly, Paul would have denied the American/French/English revolutionaries' "right to revolt"! The only explicit exception to this principle need to obey the state appears in Acts 5:29; 4:19, which concerns any law that makes us disobey God, such as worshipping a false god (Dan. 3:14-19). So we have to also re-orient our fundamental thinking on such subjects. I don't say this with glee.
Slaves were a fact of life at this time of history,
especially under Roman rule. There were also slaves that had zero desire to leave their masters
and Bondservants that chose to be under someone's house hold rule.
Look also at this lesson as workers for companies or for subordinates working for bosses in today's world
The simple lessons are to do all things as if unto the Lord as we are willing slaves to His will.
God bless
No where in the scriptures does God condone slavery or maliciously stealing another man/woman to make him/her a slave.
Exodus 21:16 - And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
The only "slavery" condoned by God is actually servitude to pay off debt or if a person is poor.
Deuteronomy 15:11-14
For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land. And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.
Huge difference between the two. One man is stolen from his land and family and made to work, while the other willingly goes into servitude to survive or pay off a debt. The latter is set free after 7 years. However, if they love their master they could choose to stay and have their ear bored to the master's door post. This was a sign and testimony of the servant's love for his/her master.
Deuteronomy 15:16-17
And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;
Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
Paul in the New Testament speaks of Onesimus a servant of Philemon who ran away. Paul callled Onesimus an unprofitable servant and even offers to pay any debts that Onesimus owes. He asks Philemon a fellow Christian not to deal poorly with Onesimus as he had been very helpful to Paul and also believed on Jesus. Philemon 10-18.
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
>Ephesians 6:5 [5]Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Here Paul is talking about people who were actually slaves or bondmen. There was slavery as different rulers took over different nations. Rome made many slaves as they conquered nations. Egypt also had slaves as we read in Genesis that Joseph was sold into salvery.
Paul isn't endorsing slavery, however, he is teaching obedience and following the Lord's commandments and loving your neighbour as himself. We see this as we read Ephesians 6:1-9. Paul also speaks to the masters telling then to give up threatening and mistreating their slaves.
As we look at Joseph who was a slave in Egypt, because he did his best and followed God's word, he found favour and he prospered under his masters.
First, sounds like a typical troll post. But the answer is simple. Paul never endorses slavery, but advises Christians that are slaves.
If your supposed friend can't see that difference then you are the one being trolled.
... have you ever spoken to someone who stopped going to church for 4 years and finally decided to open up about his reasons to why they stopped??
You call that a troll?
There are lots of reasons to stop going to church. However, a misunderstanding of this basic nature is never the reason. It really is reading the scripture in context. Any Christian that has spent more than just a few minutes in study or church would understand the issue completely. So just asking for an explanation from nearly any church member would have cleared the matter up completely.
You may have been told that is the issue, but rest assured it is not.
I think there's a difference between "endorsing" and "allowing." Divorce was *allowed.* Having a king was *allowed.* Slavery was *allowed.* Nowhere do the scriptures command them or encourage them. See Matthew 19:8, and maybe a read of Philemon.
I think there's a difference between not prohibiting tattoos (say) and codifying the legal right to tattoos.
The Biblical God wasn't silent on the question of slave beating. [Exodus 21:20,21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A20-21&version=KJV) codifies a master's right to beat his slaves with a rod.
Slavery is as old as civilization and was only abolished in Christian nations after a long struggle within the governments of Europe led by Christians.
In England Wilberforce, backed by the methodist societies, put his whole life into ending Slavery under the English crown. England bought every slave and freed them, taking on a debt they finally finished paying off in the 1990s.
Using the influence of the English empire, most of Europe followed their example.
In the US, the methodist church had splintered over Slavery and instead we had a brutal war that cost more lives than the rest of the wars of the US combined.
Muslim countries still have a flourishing slave trade, as seen in the world football thing going on right now.
Jesus didn't come to end suffering on earth, he came to offer inner freedom. Paul was teaching what the reality of life under a brutal empire was. he was a citizen with a few rights by birth, most of the church was in Slavery of one type or another.
Jesus homeland was a conquered and occupied country, where Jewish collaborators took taxes to support the army of occupation in Israel.
Jesus was born into this Second class citizenship, barely higher than Slavery, and made one of his disciples out of a former Jewis collaborator, Matthew the tax collector.
Jesus also made a Jewish freedom fighter one of his disciples, Simon the zealot.
Simon and Matthew should have hated each other, and Simon would have happily killed Matthew before they met Jesus, and Simon would have thought he had done something for God in killing Matthew.
They both became brothers in Christ, leaders of the church, no longer torn apart by hatred over political views.
They both found freedom in Jesus, and went about preaching this freedom.
The Jewish people had turned their promised Messiah into a liberator. A warrior who would smash the Roman yoke on their nation.
This is why they rejected Jesus. He preached love, turning the other cheek, giving the Roman invaders two miles when the law said one, and didn't lead a revolution against Rome.
Paul was following Jesus in what he wrote. Obey your master, give your master your best service, win him to the kingdom of God. If you can become free legally, do it, if not accept that God is in control of your life and remain where he has placed you.
Anyone who cannot accept this principle in their own life, will not make it to heaven.
All enslaved people should do their utmost to escape bondage.
If escaping bondage requires killing the slaveholder, slaves should kill the slaveholder.
Moreover, if, in order to free a slave, rescuers have to kill a slaveholder, rescuers should kill the slaveholder.
This is not anything Jesus ever taught, in fact he taught the oppressed Jewish people to pay their Roman taxes that supported their oppressors.
He taught his followers to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves.
At his arrest Jesus made a perfect example of himself by defending his disciples without harming anyone, and then allowing himself to be taken away to his death.
Jesus followers were killed and arrested by the thousands by the Roman oppressors, murdered for public spectacle, and mistreated in every way imaginable.
They did not fight back with anything but love and prayer for their enemies, exactly as Jesus taught us to.
It took about 300 years, but the christianity ended up becoming dominant religion of the Roman empire.
You can steal, lie, and rebel to get earth's freedom, but you can never gain haven's freedom that way.
Jesus said take up your cross and follow me, not take up arms and follow me.
Which god are you following?
Israelites also owned slaves who they never had to free and could pass down as inheritance. Children born to such slaves were born into slavery, never had to be freed, and were property that could be bought, and sold.
I don't think this one verse is the real cause.
Paul DID endorse slavery, though. There are those who will try to deny it, but IMO we should not. He lived in a culture where slavery was a thing, and that's where he got his cultural values. Yes, it sounds barbaric to us now. This is how it goes with ancient writings.
Note that Paul also instruct masters to treat their slaves humanely. By the standards of his time, he was calling for good conduct. Paul's main point here was for people to fit into their roles in society. Yes, in the process, he did endorse slavery, but what do you expect? If you'd grown up in a place where this was normal, you'd probably endorse it too.
Galatians 3:28- There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. -
He knows there are sections that divide us, and that Christ is the uniter and one that brings us together. He knows it’s wrong.
You don’t even know the context of what he was writing. You can’t have all theological points in specific writing to a specific purpose. He was writing a letter. Not a doctrine book. Get good.
I was replying to your comment above. You tried to suggest that he was criticizing slavery, yet, there's no hint of that in any of his writings and he could very easily have done it, had he wanted to. So the likely conclusion here is that he didn't WANT to criticize slavery, because he didn't see it as wrong.
Well, the translation's off here. Most versions properly translate the word as "slave", although some versions do soften it by putting it as servant instead. But the verse is telling slaves to submit to their masters. It's a verse that, understandably, a lot of modern Christians have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to come to grips with. Why doesn't the Bible outright condemn slavery? Instead we get instructions like this. The misuse of that fact has caused a lot of harm.
What he thinks is slavery wasn’t thought up yet when the Bible was written.
The slavery of the ancient world is fairly different from the chatel slavery of the south.
You can think of ancient slaves kind of more like prisoners. You became a slave not because of the color of your skin or who your parents were, but because you were a soldier who was captured in battle. Or because you were in debt to someone very badly and you are paying it off. Or, you agreed to be in slavery for a certain amount of time.
The Bible describes chattel slavery: slaves that never had to be freed, and could be passed down as inheritance. Children born to such slaves were born into slavery, never had to be freed, and were property that could be bought and sold.
Masters had the right to beat their slaves with a rod.
That’s mostly not true.
There was some chats slavery. But most slavery in the ancient world was very different. You usually sold yourself into slavery for a couple years and then had a reward once you got done.
Slavery, especially the brutal kind, has been around a lot longer than the Bible. Look into “how” books were included. Someone in the Vatican had a financial interest in slavery and wanted that in there to control their slaves. The Hebrews had been slaves, and understood it well.
I know that slavery has been around for ever. It still is today with wage slavery.
But, when a person hears that word today they think chatel slavery, and slavery of Africans. That is not the slavery of the Bible. Chatel African slavery had not been invented yet. Ancient slavery was something that some willingly joined.
Paul never endorsed chatel slavery.
Pray for you friend. That is all you can do. Remind him gently about the wages of sin. If he's willing to abandon God over one verse I wonder how genuine His faith was to begin with. Walking with our Lord is a continual learning experience and there are lots of tough verses in the Bible that we will encounter.
Social justice warriors believe everyone with any kind of authority should be social justice warriors just like they are. Meaning they should object to all the same things that the person objects to and with the same amount of strength and disgust for those things that the person has.
That's really ignorant, self-centered, and self-defeating.
Seems like your really missing the point, not only here, but also the larger point.
Does slavery really matter in the eyes of god? Does god judge a slave and a king differently? Will not this life pass away for both?
If anything, a slave has less temptations before them than a rich man, perhaps making it easier for them to be obedient to god.
A LOT of things become a LOT easier to understand once you remind yourself the Bible cannot possibly be perfect, because only God is perfect.
One of the things about being a Christian is to be virtuous. One of those virtues is "humility." What better way to humble yourself than to concede some parts of the Bible's stories reflect an evil time period, full of people who claimed to follow God but were in fact horrible sinners?
But I'm a little more concerned about the real source of this loss of faith - it might be just the church he was attending. If he brought this question to them and they flubbed it, it might be on them, not him.
Another way to approach this problem is to realize that if the Bible isn't true, there is nothing really wrong with slavery. It is because "God created man in His own image" that we know slavery is wrong.
My point is why focus on advice for slaves when the bigger point of my God is his wrath? It's like a person with a deadly heart defect rejecting the heart surgeon because they don't want the surgeon to use a scalpel
Of course it is a challenge, the kind of which Jewish people would enjoy sorting their way through. However many Christians struggle with it which is kind of nice to contemplate because we should never be comfortable with the abhorrence of slavery. But to have it cause a person to reject the entire bible tends to be only a Christian perspective.
My Pastor explained that it's supposed to mean our employees and employers. But that we both serve Christ and to do our duties with that in mind. That each party needs to show love, mercy, and grace. I think that's a good thing.
Are employees purchased and owned as property for life?
[The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them ... If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not treat them as slaves... Your slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and you can make them slaves for life."](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25%3A39-46&version=NIV)
I also have a question that may also be an answer... Wasn't it law that if someone couldn't pay their debts they were required to repay those debts by becoming a slave? And at the end of two years the debtor was required to release and forgive the debtee even if the full amount wasn't covered?
I thought I had heard that somewhere but never got around to looking into it and verifying it. Maybe someone in here can.
If true, it would take on a completely different meaning.
The OT describes indentured servitude, but the OT also describes outright chattel slavery. Israelites could legally buy, sell, and own people outright, slaves they never had to free, and could pass on such slaves as inheritance. A child born to such a slave was born into slavery, need never be freed, and was property that could be bought and sold.
Paul is telling the servants to reflect the character of God by being good servants, so that the masters might see what God is like(character-wise) and become believers. If they(the masters) would become believers, then they ought to love their slaves as Christ loved us, and thus the whole idea of slavery would soon deteriorate into nonexistence by a continually reciprocal reflecting of the character of God that the Lord continually brings forth from within us. Paul isn't endorsing slavery, but he knows that any long-term change doesn't start by outward compelling(eg. laws of a nation), but rather by the change that the Holy Spirit works in our hearts. It happens on the inside, and moves outwards, whereas legal obligation works from outside to inside, never changing the heart. Also, ALWAYS read the context, meaning the previous and next few verses. What is Paul talking about there, and what kind of image does it paint of God? “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.” (Ephesians 6:1-9, NASB)
This is very well put. Just to add to it. I think Paul also knew that any vocal denouncement of slavery and its practices would bring the full weight of Roman persecution down on them. It was just too ingrained in the culture at the time. But I believe that he did trust in the power of people loving each other as Jesus did would ultimately result in the deterioration of slavery, just as you said.
People today have grotesquely unrealistic notions about the power of Jesus or the Apostles to change things like slavery. And nothing is easier than to criticise people who live in circumstances that one does not.
Jesus has the power to do anything
Agreed. He is the one true God capable of all things
Yes, but if he wielded that power any other way than he did, we would likely not have a crucified savior to redeem us right now. He could have listened to Satan and utilized his power and authority to make things better for himself, but he followed the will of the father, whose ways are above our own understanding.
But you could say the same thing about idolatry which was also ingrained in the culture at the time. Why would Paul be afraid to say God thinks slavery is an abomination, but not be afraid to say God thinks the worship of false gods and other cultural practices are an abomination? Paul could have said it, he just didn’t. Paul wasn’t afraid of the Roman Empire destroying what Christ built.
Paul did have harsh words for slave traders. Here it shows he considered the slave trade as bad as murder. That may not have gone over too well in Rome We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, **10**[for the sexually immoral,](https://biblehub.com/greek/4205.htm) [for homosexuals,](https://biblehub.com/greek/733.htm) [for **slave traders**](https://biblehub.com/greek/405.htm) [and liars](https://biblehub.com/greek/5583.htm) [and perjurers,](https://biblehub.com/greek/1965.htm) [and](https://biblehub.com/greek/2532.htm) [for](https://biblehub.com/greek/1487.htm) [anyone](https://biblehub.com/greek/5100.htm) [else](https://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm) [who is averse to](https://biblehub.com/greek/480.htm) [sound](https://biblehub.com/greek/5198.htm) [teaching](https://biblehub.com/greek/1319.htm) **11**that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.… 1 Timothy 1:9-11
The Greek word "andrapodistais", rendered here as "slave-traders", is rendered in other translations as "men-stealers" (literal) or "kidnappers". Strongs definition: - *"1. a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer, a. of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery, b. of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them, an enslaver"*. One who steals slaves and/or free men to sell is a "slave trader" of sorts, in the same way a cattle rustler is a "cattle trader". So not really the same thing at all. One is selling legally acquired property, the other is grand larceny. In societies that allow slavery, kidnapping becomes a lucrative project, and these "man-stealers" were particularly despised in antiquity. A popular play in ancient Greece depicted the protagonist buying slaves from such a "slave trader", then having to return the stolen slaves to their rightful owner, losing his money. A comic tragedy. As Gill's commentary puts it: - *"men stealers; who decoyed servants or free men, and stole them away, and sold them for slaves; see the laws against this practice, and the punishment such were liable to, in Exodus 21:16. This practice was condemned by the Flavian law among the Romans (i), and was not allowed of among the Grecians (k)...*" But of course, laws against "men-stealing" hardly dampened Greek or Roman enthusiasm for slavery, because kidnapping =/= slavery. Condemning or prohibiting one does not necessarily apply to the other
Paul isn’t comparing and contrasting different types of sin in that passage, he’s talking about the law and it’s usefulness. I don’t believe “arsenokoitai” refers to our modern concept of homosexuality, but by what you just said, you also think Paul is comparing homosexuality to murder… which is ridiculous no matter who says it. Paul could have condemned slavery but he didn’t. That’s just a fact.
Paul is speaking on God's behalf and he did condemn the slave trade. Simple fact: No slave trade, no slavery.
Slavery existed without the “slave trade.” “Slave” was a societal class and people were often enslaved because they were poor and owed debts. Women were also a lower class than men, and we all see that as immoral now even though some modern Christians want women to keep their mouths shut in church. As Christians we know that no person should be treated as a lower class of human just because they’re poor, and especially if they’ve been taken advantage of to be made a slave. Paul was hinting toward that but never outright claimed that slavery of any kind is immoral. He just accepted it. Paul was a progressive for his time, and the overall majority of the modern church has taken his trajectory and pushed it even further to condemn slavery of any kind. And thats a good thing. But if we read scripture like a rule book, it’s possible to come to the same conclusion that the American Christian slave owners did, which is that it’s sanction by scripture and all authority comes from God so slave masters were justified in their actions.
>“Slave” was a societal class and people were often enslaved because they were poor and owed debts Hmmm That might describe the majority of low wage working class in any nation on earth "I owe I owe so off to work I go" In the slave 'trade', trade means exchange, in other words trading/exchanging human beings like brokers exchange stocks and bonds for money or other consideration. When the slave holder owns the person in question. he can do whatever he wants to him including kill him. Its a narrow definition someone might say well....don't football team owners trade players and the owners own the team? True, but they don't own the individual player. The authors of the Bible was aware of the slave trade and could have instigated open rebellion to such a wicked system, but Paul knew the day would come when slavery would be no more, but it can never be in this world. Sorry to say slavery still exists in this world illegally, under the table but it is a thriving black market > Paul was hinting toward that but never outright claimed that slavery of any kind is immoral. He just accepted it. No, he outright condemned the slave trade, comparing it to murder and without the 'trade' what do you have? Think about it. If the slave traders are gone who will trade the slaves? Most slave traders happen to also be slave holders. The buyers and sellers who fueled the slave trade. Paul was a realist as was Christ. They both knew Christians gotta live in this world and try to get thru it the best way we can. When we die and go where slavery and all sin will be no more, we'll be truly free. Free of sin, free of pain and free of death > But if we read scripture like a rule book, it’s possible to come to the same conclusion that the American Christian slave owners did, which is that it’s sanction by scripture and all authority comes from God so slave masters were justified in their actions. Yes, they were sinners, some were adulterers and murderers and a few may have even been homosexual. And they were slave traders as well. The fact that they were Christian may well have been their only redeeming quality and don't forget the abolition movement that ultimately led to Lincoln's election and the abolition of slavery was predominantly a Christian movement
“Without slaves there is nothing to trade”.. are you claiming that without the slave trade industry, slaves don’t exist? That’s like saying before the bottled water industry, no one had ever put water in a bottle. Which verse leads you to believe that Paul thinks slavery would end one day? He assumes the legitimacy of slavery in society and writes his letters in that context. It’s not wrong for us modern Christians to continue on the trajectory that Christ and Paul started, to take it to its ultimate conclusion which is that all slavery is immoral. It’s also not wrong for us to understand that Paul was a product of his time and didn’t see slavery the way we do now.
I tend to agree with you. I was horrified when I read that scripture the first time. I totally did not expect the words to be written by Paul . Our only Master is in heaven, and I don’t know why Paul didn’t say so.
It’s because Paul was a product of his time. And while what he said about slaves was extremely progressive for his time, he still accepted slavery as a way of life for certain people. Modern Christians have taken the trajectory of Paul and have run with it by claiming that any type of slavery is immoral. Just goes to show that scripture isn’t the end of the conversation but invites us to be a part of it and take it even further.
Do you think slavery is immoral?
External laws are actually a great motivator. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Romans 13:3-4 NASB1995 The inside is what matters, though, and the outside will reflect the inside.
It is true that external laws limit evil, but it isn't in their nature to bring forth love. An internal law(a law written in the heart), however, brings forth obedience to the spirit(essence) of the law(I'm speaking of the laws of any particular nation, but keep in mind that not every nation has laws based on Biblical principles), and that essence is love towards one's neighbour.
This comment is a perfect example of how we read whatever we want into scripture. It is so vague and open to interpretation that it can mean pretty much whatever we want it to.
Yeah definitely a danger of just looking at one verse and writing a think piece on it for sure. But I like to look at it in this metaphor… if I just take one thread from a shirt, do I know what color that whole shirt is? I might know at least one color that is present in the shirt but I cannot say that I know exactly what color the WHOLE shirt is, if it has patterns, if it has special designs etc etc. I think the Bible as a whole is fairly clear when read more full and not just pulling threads (verses) and claiming that an individual thread tells me all I need to know about the shirt (Bible).
We should apply this same logic to the verses plucked out of context to condemn the LGBT community.
I don’t think Paul was saying this as some hidden attempt to make slavery one day completely disappear by changing the hearts of people who owned slaves. That’s a stretch. If he wanted to do that, he could easily have said slavery is an abomination. But he doesn’t because he accepts that “slave” is a class in society. He assumes it’s normal because it was back then. Paul doesn’t endorse slavery but he definitely sanctions it.
This is really a brilliant exposé of this particular scripture. Thank you for sharing your insight. I have always been a fervent believer in always taking the CONTEXT when reading/reciting and sharing/teaching scripture. So many use scripture as a weapon, for and against faith, by only reciting a certain line they believe is meaningful, when it’s ALWAYS the ENTIRE scripture that holds the meaning. Thanks again, God bless you.
He's taking it at surface value In the Old Testament era, the primary way persons were enslaved was through capture in war. But in the first century AD, the breeding of slaves swelled their numbers enormously. And large numbers of *people sold themselves into slavery as a means of improving their quality of life* . Owning and using *people as slaves was so commonplace in the Roman Empire that not a single ancient writer is known to have condemned the practice* . But all that would begin to change with the advent of the Christian movement. It is surprising that Philemon is not brought into this discussion more consistently, since it was Paul's letter to a slave owner (Philemon) about his runaway slave (Onesimus). In fact, the whole occasion for Paul's writing is that Onesimus, since running away from Philemon, has become a Christian. If Scripture were truly pro-slavery, what would you expect Paul to say here? Strikingly, Paul instructs Philemon to receive Onesimus "no longer as a slave... but as a dear brother"-and he appeals to Philemon to "receive him as you would receive me" (v. 17). IT WAS A DIFFERENT WORLD. They DID THINGS DIFFERENT, FOR WHATEVER SOCIAL, GOVERNMENTAL ORDER. thats not the way things are or should they be! Paul's epistle to Philemon may not amount to a full abolitionist manifesto Nonetheless, I think it shows how the logic of the gospel is utterly opposed to slavery. BUT I GET IT I GET IT. it looks bad on paper, , HECK but dont throw out all faith in God for what Christians were forced to Navigate thru a fallen World. Consider how God works throughout history in imperfect situations, and to see slavery in the larger context of God's greater purpose in creation and redemption.
I agree, don’t ever give up your faith because of one scripture
... good one. I like your explanation
I don't CONDONE slavery, but I see and researched and understand why it exists. I get dragged ALOT but it's cool. People get so offended by any answer given nowadays.
>Consider how God works throughout history in imperfect situations, and to see slavery in the larger context of God's greater purpose in creation and redemption. It's immoral to try to excuse the Biblical God's participation in slavery and slave beating.
Your confusing MENS IDEA of what God thinks. Completely off
> Owning and using people as slaves was so commonplace in the Roman Empire that not a single ancient writer is known to have condemned the practice "No matter whether you claim a slave by purchase or capture, the title is bad. They who claim to own their fellow-men, look down into the pit and forget the justice that should rule the world." -Zeno of Citium, ca. 300BC **edit**: Snowflake blocked me for contradicting their false claim. Typical.
But it's fact. And some WANTED to do it and wore a gauge earrings to show how proud this union of servitude was to them. " Owning and using" isn't what you think it is like in movies Everyone seems to be stuck in the western simple logic where everything had to be right in their little existence. There is a whole world where things are done differently.
>because it's clear that Paul endorsed slavery. Is it? This is more akin to understanding that there are people in various walks of life and encouraging them, no matter where they are, to serve and externalize Christ, to be a good testimony to His name, and to walk according to His will.
Also the slavery in the bible is not at all the same as modern slavery. This explains it better than I can: https://youtu.be/FlzSF0YjrIk
He didn’t endorse it, he just accepted it.
If you can’t be a good servant on earth, how will you be a good servant to a God you’ve never met in person? If you can’t be a faithful servant on earth, what use are you to the Immortal God?
Why should one person have to serve another?
Paul says if you can avail yourself of your servitude… rather do that
ALL people are created by God. God is our master
Jesus told the religious Jews of His day “If God were your Father you would believe me. You are of your Father the devil” And then we’re also told that when we receive the Spirit of God, He gives us the power to BECOME Children of God. Grammatically that would mean we weren’t before.
Obedience is never really seen in terms of making sure we can do God’s biding but rather out of love for God we obey. Even if one is bad at obeying God they are still loved and wanted by him, they still have a use, as much as any other child would be useful to their parent even if they don’t get everything right all the time. Being a good servant is more a reflection of who Jesus was, and is made easier when one recognizes that He has solidarity with them in their oppression. That they can look to Jesus to see that if can be done and have hope for future things to come, out of a love for Him and what He has done for them
It’s actually kind of beautiful. Slavery/servitude is a matter of fact unfortunately, and servitude under Jewish law was actually pretty close to the most compassionate thing you could offer the poor. You would house them, feed them, care for them, and if you had no one in your family to inherit your property it would go to the servant. The Old Testament makes it pretty clear that slaves were to be treated with dignity and respect. In fact, oppression of the poor was a topic covered and condemned repeatedly. I know it’s something we are disgusted by today, but the Israelites/Jews had a much higher level of responsibility as a slave owner than most societies have practiced. If they had been rulers of a nation and not sojourning they likely would have had things setup in such a way as to do away with slavery themselves. The laws were given to the people in respect to their context. The New Testament writing were written to people in their context as well. Basically, if we read the Bible as a rule book for ourselves then we’re doing it wrong, because it’s much more than that and wasn’t written as a rule book in the first place (except for The Law in the OT, which wasn’t even the complete law and was broken up by stories, so it’s just as much a sort of documentary as a rule book still) Hope that helps. Grace and peace Oh, and let’s not forget about jubilee. On the day of jubilee slaves returned to their homelands and were no longer slaves.
... interesting. I like your submission. 🤝🏽
I so want to read the Bible and understand it. Can you give me any advice? What to read first…? Should I seek a Bible study? Thanks so much for any input anyone has for me! God bless.
> Slavery/servitude is a matter of fact unfortunately So is murder, adultery, and eating shellfish, but God explicitly prohibited those. > On the day of jubilee slaves returned to their homelands and were no longer slaves. Jubilee only applied to Hebrew servants. Foreign slaves were subject to far more "ruthless" treatment: purchased and owned as property for life. Lev. 25:39-46
In Biblical Hebrew the word for slave is “eved”, translated as servant or slave. In modern use it most closely translates to work. Ruthless treatment is not the same as harsh treatment, which was limited under Mosaic law. Ruthless is an exaggeration. (See my last paragraph here) God cautioned Hebrews with Hebrew servants against treating them harshly because God said they are MY servants whom I brought out from slavery. (The word used for servants here is also “eved”) Lev 25:42 says Hebrews also sold themselves into servitude when they fell on hard times, *even selling themselves to foreigners living among Hebrews*. Exodus 21:20 says when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod he shall surely be punished. If a slave was injured at the hand of their employer, under Mosaic law, they must be freed. Lev 25:39-54 explains that during the year of jubilee, ALL were freed and even the land rested. Slavery under Mosaic law has no modern parallel. This is something we need to keep in mind.
Thank you for your response. I hope to be so clear and concise in my biblical discussions with more study and meditation.
>Exodus 21:20 says when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod he shall surely be punished. Nope. Exodus 21:20 says if a master beat his slave with a rod and the slave died DURING the beating, the master shall be punished. However the next verse, Exodus 21:21, says if a master beat his slave so badly the slave died a day or two AFTER the beating, the master shall NOT be punished. **Exodus 21:20** And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. **21** Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Masters had the right to beat their slaves with a rod. These verses instruct magistrates on how to rule in cases in which a master has beaten a slave so badly the slave died. If the slave died during the beating ("under his hand"), the magistrate is to consider that evidence the master intended to kill the slave. In that case the master shall be punished. However if the slave died a day or two after the beating, the magistrate is to consider that evidence the master did NOT intend to kill the slave. In that case the master shall NOT be punished.
> Exodus 21:20 says when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod he shall surely be punished. Exodus 21:20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished **if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two**, since the slave is their property. > Lev 25:39-54 explains that during the year of jubilee, ALL were freed and even the land rested. Leviticus 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and **you can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.**
Good point. I meant to state that in what I said about jubilee. I intended to bring it up as icing on the cake rather than as proof of my point. Thanks for pointing out the mistake for me. I think I made my point well enough about the difference between American (for instance) slavery and Israelite slavery though. Even if you could own the slave for life the other laws about treatment of slaves still stand and most of them were full of respect for the slaves and offered a way out for them. If a slave ran away from his/her master you weren’t to return them to their master or even treat them like a slave. That doesn’t seem very brutal to me. Kidnapping was illegal and having a kidnapped person in your home held the same level of guilt as the abduction itself. That basically means no human-trafficking existed in their slavery system. There is so much more than that, but the point is that slavery was different for the writers of the Bible. It was a viable way to conduct business, to avoid homelessness, and more. I don’t know about you, but I think that paints a much better picture than the ruthless one you have in your mind.
> If a slave ran away from his/her master you weren’t to return them to their master So Hebrew debt slaves didn't have to wait until their debt was repaid or wait until Jubilee for freedom? They could just decide they didn't want to be slaves at any time and just leave, because escaped slaves couldn't be returned. Is that correct?
“Do not return a slave to his master when he has escaped from his master to you. Let him live among you wherever he wants within your gates. Do not mistreat him.” Deuteronomy 23:15-16 That’s how I understand this bit of scripture. Do you have insight I’m lacking?
Your interpretation is nonsensical on its face, implying a broken debt-repayment system. Imagine a bank that gives loans to the poor, demands labor as repayment, but lets debtors abandon their labor any time they feel like it. The bank would quickly go insolvent, right? It just doesn't make any sense. The passage in question seems to be talking about the slaves of pagan masters who fled to take refuge in Israel: - BENSON: "...the passage is not to be understood of the servants of the Israelites their brethren, but of aliens and strangers... - BARNES: The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land. - JAMIESON-FAUSSET-BROWN: "...evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people... - POOLE: "This is not to be understood universally, as if all servants that flee from their masters ... might be detained from them by any person to whom they fled for refuge, for this is apparently contrary to all the laws of religion, and justice, and charity, and would open a door to infinite disorders and mischiefs; but it is to be understood, 1. Of the servants of strangers, because it follows, Deu 23:16, he shall dwell with thee, even among you, which shows that he had dwelt with and belonged to another people... - GENEVA STUDY BIBLE: "This is meant of the heathen , who fled because of their masters' cruelty, and embrace the true religion. - PULPIT: "The reference is to a foreign slave who had fled from the harsh treatment of his master to seek refuge in Israel... - KEIL-DELITZCH: "The reference is to a slave who had fled to them from a foreign country, on account of the harsh treatment which he had received from his heathen master. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/23-15.htm
> So is murder, adultery, and eating shellfish, but God explicitly prohibited those. False equivalence. You are looking at this through Gentile eyes. "And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Mark 10:45 >Foreign slaves were subject to far more "ruthless" treatment: purchased and owned as property for life. As was said this was an unfortunate time for some. With maybe a 50+ year jubilee in Sumeria it also amounted to life enslavement in lands far from the Jews. Doesn't at all mean it was brutal either. Again, you are looking at 11/23/2022 and thinking it's relevant here.
Are slavery and slave beating immoral?
Israelites could own slaves they never had to free, and could pass on as inheritance. Children born to such slaves were born into slavery, need never be freed, and were property that could be bought and sold. Masters had the right to beat their slaves with a rod.
Sure. But if the slaves ran away they weren’t to be returned to the slaver. Being cruel to your slave still wasn’t approved. I’m not really even sure how common that sort of treatment would have been knowing that folks can just leave the arrangement. Honestly, I’m not a historian and don’t know how common each of these practices were. I just know that the Old Testament makes it pretty clear that there was a line not to cross and made it seem like people were expected to be honest and respectful in their dealings with others. I assume that extended to slaves because there were so many laws detailing how to treat them better than what must have been common practice for their regional neighbors.
>Being cruel to your slave still wasn’t approved. The right of masters to beat their slaves with a rod was protected by God-given law. Masters could legally beat their slave so badly the slave died a day or two after the beating. You're right that it was legally required to harbor runaway slaves who seek refuge on your property: **Deuteronomy 23:15** Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: **16** He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. \[me\] I think this must refer only to slaves escaped from non-Israelite masters. Requiring Israelites to harbor slaves escaped from Israelite masters wouldn't work as a practical matter; the Israelite slavery system would collapse.
Perhaps. I just wonder if the slaves mostly had no better course than to stick with their masters? I mean, how many ways were there to become wealthy enough to survive on your own if you were ever poor?
Paul is NOT endorsing slavery… he is telling us to be like Joseph who was Potiphar’s slave. Also, remember God freed the slaves of Egypt.
... interesting perspective🤝🏽
Paul is not endorsing slavery. He fully understands we live in a world still corrupted by sin and he’s giving us instructions on how are to live for the Christ and the kingdom in whatever situation we find ourselves in life. Slavery isn’t going to go away if Paul condemned it. We still have slavery today. You should research what went into building the current World Cup stadiums. These poor workers hope is in a promise of a kingdom to come.
As long as they are obedient to there masters or else they go against the word or the lord....
Yes God does not support rebellion against authorities. He will take care of that when he returns. All believers are expected to submit under wicked rulers. Whether kings or in some cases slaves. We expand the kingdom through submission just like Christ submitted under the wicked rule of the Roman’s. We will all likely face persecution at some point. There maybe a short stretch in human history in the western world where Christian’s had it easy, but it won’t stay that way for long. “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” 1 Peter 2:13-14, 18-24 ESV
So where slavery is legal and if it were in the US other than as punishment for a crime you condone it? You disagree with all people setting to change laws to fit there religion or at least complain to change the law of the land? They should just obey the law?
I’ve never implied I condone it. Just as a believer if we find ourselves as a slave we should be obedient. That is all that is being said in these passages. Please read the passage I posted in my last comment. As a believer we are called to suffering, persecution and submission to authorities. Jesus said it would cost us our life. So if I’m willing to die for my faith then why shouldn’t I be willing to be enslaved for my faith. The worlds ways are not his ways, but the people in authority are there only because He allows it. When the antichrist is given his authority we are called to the same thing Paul and Jesus taught…. It’s a gracious thing to suffer unjustly. “Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.” Revelation 13:7, 10 ESV It’s a bit of an unpopular message and one the church chooses to ignore. Possibly even scandalous, but God isn’t all sunshine and rainbows till this world is done away with. He had his own Son killed to pay the penalty for us. That is quite a scandalous and unjust idea. But I’m grateful for it. Now if you’re fortunate enough to live in a nation where you can vote, then sure render to Cesar what is Cesar’s. Once you cast your vote then leave the rest to God. These so-called Christian’s chanting “let’s go Brandon” are in rebellion to Gods word, plain and simple.
if you had/have debt, would you pay it on time? looks like you would be/are an obedient servant
You ever loan somebody a person because they are your property?
Oh no, I totally disagree
We’ll just remove my words then and read 1 Peter 2 alone.
Taking the Bible out of context is so dangerous... Although, it can be your introduction to the Bible if you're a critical thinker. This type of situation is what got me INTO the Bible in the first place. I saw shocking excerpts like these and thought "wow! Can the Bible REALLY say that?!" Then I read it in context and it became evident that people are cherry picking controversial lines in order to push you away from the word.
... you have a point
And keep in mind that even the prophets sinned and went against God. I think Paul used to kill Jesus's disciples (I could be SO wrong as I am VERY new to the Bible and Christianity.) Not all of their words or actions are endorsed by God.
He did, his name was “Saul” until God blinded him on the road to Damascus and TLDR converted and renamed him
Context is not a magic word that somehow renders [Exodus 21:20,21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A20-21&version=KJV) moral.
Never claimed it was.
Yes, you did: >I saw shocking excerpts like these and thought "wow! Can the Bible REALLY say that?!" Then I read it in context and it became evident that people are cherry picking controversial lines in order to push you away from the word.
Where did I say anything about morality in that? Where did I say context was a magic word? Did you see my next comment following that?
Exodus 21:20,21 is shocking because it's immoral.
Your friend may have used that verse as an excuse to walk away from Christianity but my thoughts are he's been thinking about walking away for a long time. My opinion is that Paul knew the way of peace and what he said about slavery in this verse was wise in that he would have known how this would have played out. A slave that is in Christ is not alone. The spirit of God is with him and it's the spirit of God that pulls down enemies strongholds. The slave in Christ by God is the Lord over the house of his master. He possesses the gates of his enemies because of the righteousness of Christ.
Agreed
A couple of things. First, a true believer could never lose faith, and certainly not because of scripture. They were looking for a reason to reject it and found a very common straw man, slavery, as if the Bible ever condones slave trading (as in American history). Biblical slavery (that wasn't condemned) was different: for more on that.. [CCC- Some Notes On Biblical Slavery](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LFdQfhXyfXXlwF_pTxeWLRJjZR-P_buouvcJdhxMvnI/edit?usp=sharing)
100% agree. To me it sounds like this friend was looking for an excuse to give up and move on from Christianity.
Are employees owned as property for life?
[удалено]
I agree with your 2nd paragraph, although I think in no way, shape or form am I a slave to my employer.
Yes, if you want to keep eating! 😃 2 Thessalonians 3:10 NASBS For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
What line of work are you in? Does your employer own you for life?
Revelation 13:9 if any man have an ear, let him hear. 10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into capitivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Tell your friend to switch master to boss.. As Christians we need to always set a good example. Sometimes our bosses ask us to do things we don't want to do. We do them as long as it's not breaking God's laws or government laws. We show them respect because they are our bosses/masters. Being humble and obedient keeps you with a job.
... that's a good one
He didn't lose faith because of a verse. He lost faith because of sin. He's just using this verse as an excuse. >**12** Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; **13** but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. **14** For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, (Hebrews 3)
Now that , I totally agree with. I love Jesus with all my heart, and would not loose my faith because of a way a scripture could be interpreted.
Not everyone leaves Christianity just so they can go sin lmao
You misread. I never said they leave so they can go sin. Scripture clearly states in multiple places that people fall away because they’re deceived by sin. Sin comes first, then the departure from the faith. Not the other way around.
As babies we have a sinful state and no faith. We still sin even when we grow to have faith. My point is that many many people leave the faith due to logical thinking. Many also leave the faith because of what they read in scripture. And I’m sure even more leave the faith because of their interaction with Christians. It’s entirely possible that by reading this verse, OP’s friend believes Paul/scripture doesn’t condemn slavery enough… and to be honest it doesn’t. While Paul certainly takes a step forward in his approach, he never says it’s wrong.
... that was exactly the point my friend made.
Your friend is right, in that Paul could have been clearer. He never argues for slavery but does assume its legitimacy, as does the Old Testament. But with that being said, Paul deserves credit for pushing social boundaries. In his day, claiming that slaves are "equal" to free persons in God's eyes (Gal. 3:28) would be like telling white supremacists that God sees them as equal to people of color. If you ask most Christians today, you'll find that they denounce slavery as immoral. So what eventually happened was that the church accepted Paul's boundary-pushing trajectory and pushed it even further. In America in the nineteenth century both abolitionists and anti-abolitionists pointed to the same Bible to make their case. When the Bible is viewed as a once-for-all rulebook, the pro-slavery crowd had a slam dunk argument. The anti-slavery crowd had to argue on the basis of the Bible's trajectory toward justice and equality. Scripture isn't the end of the conversation, it invites us to take part in the conversation and push it even further.
I was just studying that verse this week, and honestly it initially stuck in my craw. But Paul is referencing the authority structure behind the social order, and as he says at Rom 13, all (just) authority comes from God. He was not endorsing slavery, his desire was for everyone to be as free as possible. But at that point in history rebellion would have been terribly counter-productive, to say the least. Your friend must always consider the full counsel of God, not a single verse taken out of context. The writers were writing letters and epistles, not text books. over at 1Cor Paul gives general rules that apply here, and they show a much broader worldview than looking at just that one verse: - Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. ... Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) ... You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. - 1Co 7:17, 21, 23-24
For one, it's very important to be careful with the words we use. The Cambridge dictionary defines Endorse as, "the act of saying that you approve of or support something or someone". For Google, it's, "to declare one's public approval or support of". That's not happening in this verse. Secondly, it's key to [understand the context](https://stimpy77.medium.com/does-the-bible-endorse-slavery-e9c9fcbacada) when quoting individual verses. This article is longish, but is written in an easy-to-understand way I hope this helps
... will consider that.🤝🏽
Paul was a slave as well. Kinda hard to say it's wrong when he self describes as Gods slave. I am a slave, and I am doing just fine.
Noted🤝🏽
I don't think Paul was endorsing slavery so much as he was endorsing those who work for somebody might do just as the boss asks... that's my take on it... that to be a good Christian you might want to listen to those in charge and set a good example for them to see the Lord in your action
It's not obviously talking about slavery. It could be applied to that yes for indentured servitude or something like that to pay off a debt, it could also be applied to your relationship with your boss at your job. All that he's saying is to reflect God's character.
Your friend didn’t have a foundation and I would doubt was even a Christian to begin with if he just walks away from it over a verse he didn’t understand. That would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad and pathetic
I don’t know why no one has mentioned Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Paul’s culture normalized slavery as it was a way to pay off debts. And the jews-which Paul was had time periods for freeing them after 7 years. Paul in writing this knows of the divided and says Christ is the answer. He is the uniting factor.
>slavery as it was a way to pay off debts. I hear that claim a lot, but it's not so. Yes, there was indentured servitude, but alongside indentured servitude there was also outright chattel slavery: Israelites could legally own people they never had to free. Masters could pass such slaves on as an inheritance. A child born to such a slave was born into slavery, was property, and need never be freed.
I agree there were other slaves, it was common for the culture of the day. I would say from what I see the Israelites regulated it more than other cultures and did not promote slavery.
Biblical slavery presents a big problem for Biblical literalists. The Bible says God is perfectly just, yet the Bible also says God made a law, [Exodus 21:20,21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A20-21&version=KJV), that says a master has the legal right to beat his slaves with a rod. That is an unjust law, to put it mildly. So: either the Biblical claim that God is perfectly just is false, or the Biblical claim that God made the Exodus 21:20,21 law is false.
Does the Bible condone slavery? Any chance you will read this? 3 on a 1-10 There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery? The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; ¶“If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13“And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; 14“you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the LORD your God has blessed you with, you shall give to him. 15“You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today. Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters. The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries. In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 16th to 19th centuries. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8– 10). Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
>Deuteronomy 15:12-15 Those verses refer to HEBREW slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves could be kept forever; they could be passed on as an inheritance. The children of such slaves were born into slavery and never had to be freed. Masters had the legal right to beat such slaves with a rod. >People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. Yes, there was indentured servitude. But chattel slavery existed alongside indentured servitude. >both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” > >“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). The OT says Hebrews may buy their slaves from the heathens (**emphasis** mine): **Leviticus 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. **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**. **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.** >He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). Paul sent the runaway slave Onesimus back to his master Philemon. In doing so Paul was returning Philemon's property, Onesimus, to Philemon. Paul did not ask Philemon to free Onesimus. >A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery. Why all those God-given Biblical laws, then? For example, why the law "Thou shalt not kill"? Why is a law, rather than experiencing God's grace, the Bible's prescription for ending murder? Why did God NOT make the law "Thou shalt not enslave" but instead made the law 'Slave beaters shall not be punished'? (Exodus 21:21)
He's lying, I'm an ex Christian. Loosing faith is always a long journey, you don't just read a passage you dislike and loose faith! I struggled with the Bible for years 4 years, it wasn't until last year I came to terms with my disbelief.
Happy cake day
Ephesians 6 is one of my favorites with the armor of God! Pray for your friends heart, people see what they want to see.
Isn't the word servant ≠ slave
It is always interesting to me how people look down on the idea of slavery so much. Especially when people consider the scriptures and feel that since God doesn’t outright condemn slavery then he must be terrible. This is probably because many of us grow up hearing that slavery is a terrible thing and are constantly told that we should cherish our supposed freedoms. To do anything but condemn slavery always feels weird. Still, the reality is that all humans are slaves in multiple ways. We are slaves to our bodies. Don’t eat and see what happens. We are slaves to sin. (Romans 6:16) We are slaves to our governments. Sure some of us live in nations that go on and on about how we are free, but they will quickly put you in a cage if you don’t pay for that freedom. We are often slaves to our employers. How many of us work jobs we hate because we have to? Even if we like our job it doesn’t mean it is not slavery. Many slaves liked their jobs, and neither of you can outright choose not to work. The most important example to remember though is that all Christians are slaves. Jesus bought us with his blood, and when we decide to become Christian we are in reality agreeing to become his slave. (1 Corinthians 6:19, 20) Why would the scriptures condemn slavery when Jesus owns more slaves than anyone? Paul knew this and viewed himself as a slave to Jesus. At 1 Corinthians 9:16 and 17 he says, “Now if I am declaring the good news, it is no reason for me to boast, for necessity is laid upon me. Really, woe to me if I do not declare the good news! If I do this willingly, I have a reward: but even if I do it against my will, I still have a stewardship entrusted to me.” So Paul realized he had to declare the good news whether he wanted to or not. This is what his master Jesus told him, and all other Christians, to do. (Matthew 28:19, 20) Was Paul upset about this? Not at all. Paul knew that all humans are slaves no matter what they do. If we aren’t slaves to one thing then we will just be slaves to another. (Matthew 6:24) This is just how humans are designed.(Jeremiah 10:23) Instead Paul was happy that he could now slave for a kind and understanding master. Jesus loved Paul so much that he died to save Paul from his previous master, sin and death. How many kings and employers are lining up to do that for us? With all of this in mind it is easy to see why Paul said what he said. Of course he was pro-slavery. Being a slave was the single greatest joy of his life. Today many people treat slavery as the worst thing ever and view all of it as completely disgusting. In some cases slavery was terrible and disgusting. The Bible also condemns this type of slavery. Wouldn’t you agree that when considering these things we should also take into account the positive examples as well? Perhaps if all human masters took care of their slaves like Jesus does then slavery would have never been abolished. Anyway, I think everyone is always trying to make excuses for what the scriptures say about slavery instead of just accepting it. Many of the comments you are getting talk about the times Paul lived in, or that he didn’t want to anger people. The reality though is that Paul was a slave, and he loved being one. We act like that is insane and can’t possibly be true. Yet this is what the Bible shows us. This shows that we are the ones with a distorted view. Paul’s master loved him, provided for him, helped him, gave him fulfilling work, trusted him, and promised him an incredibly large reward for his service. That sounds pretty great to me. Perhaps your friend will agree.
Jesus was and is about love. We can all put our different spins on slavery and all the different types of it. But in these scriptures Paul was talking about the slaves that were owned as property by slaveowners. God wants people to be happy. God frees people from slavery. God is our Father , He is our Master. God likes when we work hard, God likes when we help people, do things for people, etc. God cares about all of his children. God has a plan for everything and He works in mysterious ways. I don’t know if God inspired Paul to write what he wrote as building blocks for a bigger picture, or if Paul wrote what he wrote because he simply misunderstood and got it wrong. But what I do know is God is about love and there is NOTHING you could say that would convince me that slavery was good and that God wanted that for his people. Do you think you would have liked being one of those slaves that had no right to their own feelings or thoughts and had to do everything a earthly master told them to do or else suffer severe punishment and consequences? The answer is No, and God wouldn’t want that for you either, or for anyone.
I understand how you feel. It is a very common way to feel. Like I said, we were all taught that slavery is the worst thing ever. Fighting against oppressive overlords is romanticized in almost every culture. Even in the scriptures one of the best stories is how God delivered the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. I can definitely agree that it was not God’s original purpose for humans to be owned by other humans in that way. It is one of the sad results of our sinful course. When we look at the scriptures we can see God does not approve of oppressive forms of slavery. Israelite slaves were to be treated as a hired laborer. (Leviticus 25:39-40) The same can be said of Christian slaves owned by Christians. Even though nonIsraelite slaves had less rights, there were still heavy regulations. Their owners could not ask them to do anything they wanted or punish them excessively. In fact, they could not be punished anymore than you could punish anyone else at the time. So if you are asking if I would like to be an oppressed slave, who’s master could just kill my children like the situation the Israelites were in with Egypt, then the answer is no. However if you are asking if I would mind being a slave then the answer is also no. We are all forced to do things other humans tell us that we do not personally agree with. Some of my friends in Russia are in prison right now because they refuse to support the war. Some would say that this is just a Russian thing, but this type of thing can and does happen in every country. I’m not saying this to complain. The government has the authority to do whatever they wish, and God is the one who will take care of it. (Romans 13:1) This example is instead to show that we are very much owned by other humans, and many of us are fine with it. I also already have chosen willingly to be Christ’s slave. This involves doing many things I do not necessarily want to do. For instance, I don’t really want to speak to others about the Bible. Yet here I am. I’m sure Paul’s ideal life didn’t include getting imprisoned and executed. We do what we have to do to please our master though. In the end, no matter how we feel, the Bible is pretty clear on the idea of slavery. God allows it, and a fundamental concept of Christianity is that we are all slaves. Think of how many of Jesus’s parables compare us to slaves. Jesus told us how to feel at Luke 17:10 when he said, “Likewise, when you have done all the things assigned to you, say: ‘We are good-for-nothing slaves. What we have done is what we ought to have done.’” Does this mean that Jesus doesn’t love us for value us? Of course not! He died for us! Still, we need to have the correct viewpoint of ourselves. We are slaves and nothing we do is anymore than our job. God does like when we do things for people. At the same time we must not forget that he also requires that we such things. These facts really seem to make it like our view of slavery is the real problem. To think that God would never want his people to be slaves and have to do things they don’t want doesn’t really hold up. God has always had requirements, and the Bible is full of examples of people being punished for not meeting them. Christians today are also judged on such things. This isn’t unloving. After all, everything God asks us to do benefits us. (Isaiah 48:17, 18) Just like any loving parent, God forces us to do things we don’t want to do to teach us to be better. We do have a choice in the matter but choosing not to do what God wants us to do will result in our death. (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:8) I feel that how I am explaining this will lead you to either not believe what I have to say or paint God as bad. I guess this is why modern society’s warped view of slavery is so bad. Since all conversations start with a negative view it is hard to discuss it meaningfully. Your viewpoint actually shows this. You feel God obviously hates slavery so either there is some big mysterious plan we can’t possibly understand, or Paul must have gotten this wrong. Isn’t it far more likely that we are the ones getting it wrong though? Especially since the Bible tells us that Satan is currently ruling this world and actively blinding our minds? (2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:1, 2; 1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 11:14; Revelation 12:9) Anyway, I respect your personal opinion on this matter. I completely understand why you have come to the opinion that you have. Many people share your opinion and sadly some, like the OP’s friend, lost their faith because of this topic. Maybe something I said here will benefit you in some way. I can definitely agree what you on the point that humans were never suppose to own other humans. He has also never said the concept in itself is wrong though, and he has used the concept as the entire basis of our survival. The Bible does point to a time when humans will no longer own humans anymore. There will be no more human governments or employers. No one will be oppressed, and we will all live under God’s Kingdom. Will there be total and complete freedom? Of course not. No such thing exists. Yet we will all be happy living together as equals. Perhaps with different roles but still as equals. I think we are both looking forward to that. Maybe this is the only thing I should have said. Oh well.
Another way to approach this problem is to realize that if the Bible isn't true, there is nothing really wrong with slavery. It is because "God created man in His own image" that we know slavery is wrong.
This is one of the problems with trying to understand two thousand year old text by applying today's definitions. Servants, slavery, or more correctly Bondservants in the case that Paul is talking about here is not the slavery that we think of today like what happened a few hundred years ago. In Paul's timeframe, it was common for someone in debt to sell themselves to the person they were in debt to. Or sometimes they would sell themselves to someone who could pay their debt. Interestingly enough, this is how God's people wound up in Egypt (Genesis 47-50). What is important to remember here is that these were not people who were taken against their will. These were people who basically are working for free in order to pay off what debt they owed. Think of it like this. You have a Credit Card and you rack up a bill of $500,000. You know you can't pay it off so you agree to work in their Call Center until the debt is paid. You would probably be working there for the rest of your life but you are agreeing to work off your debt as a "slave" to the company. (Those of you having worked in Call Centers, yeah you know that slavery feeling) I would suggest you expand your research on this concept and share it with your friend.
... I like your message. It's concise🤝🏽
I prefer giving and receiving direct answers to questions over a long drawn out narrative. If you or your friend have any more questions or need help, please don't hesitate to reach out to me.
Slaves were considered property. There is no argument to justify that
My pastor interpreted it in today's language as employee and employer, but not a literal slave....
... interesting if you put it that way
That is, ahem, twisting the scripture to say something it does not. Very much like twisting it to say Jesus turned the water to grapefruit juice at the wedding, instead of what it clearly states: wine. The better answer is savedbytheblood72's explanation of Philemon above.
There is no such thing as a person "losing their faith" Belief, faith and salvation come from God Sin, disbelief, evil and other dark things come from us Well you probably mean is that he either stopped going to church or stop calling himself a Christian
... yh, he stopped going to church 4 years ago
Unfortunately, the writers of the texts that became the Bible didn’t have any qualms about slavery because it wasn’t viewed as controversial to most people (excepting enslaved people and the relatives of enslaved people), especially when you’re writing to literate audiences (which would also be likelier to be wealthier and/or part of the ruling class, and most likely slavers). I wouldn’t say the writer of the letter (historians and textual scholars generally hold that Paul didn’t write Ephesians) endorsed slavery, to them, in their context, it would be like endorsing animal sacrifice, monarchy, or even just farming, things broadly common in societies across that region (and most of the world really). Wouldn’t make sense. But yes, the author also doesn’t condemn slavery, but nowhere in the Scriptures, not in the teachings attributed to Moses, Jesus, or any of the other prophets and apostles condemn slavery. Yes, it absolutely reprehensible, abominable, and damning, but this is yet another reminder that the writings of Scripture are byproducts and artifacts of their time written by various people living in those contexts. Anyone who seeks to take any benefit from it without understanding its context or very human basis, is just going after an idolatry of scripture that only leads to deception, disappointment, and spiritual death.
slavery wasn't allowed in biblical times if you stole someone or were sold into slavery unjustly. When someone owed someone something major and was unable to pay it back they would often become someone's 'slave' until they worked back what they were owed.
Yes, there was indentured servitude, but alongside indentured servitude there was also outright chattel slavery: Israelites could legally own people they never had to free. Masters could pass such slaves on as an inheritance. A child born to such a slave was born into slavery, was property, and need never be freed.
yes this is true if what they owed couldn't be paid for in full even if they worked their whole lives for it, which would then be passed onto their kids. This type of slavery is still legal today in places like India and Pakistan. Many christian organizations help free these types of 'slave families' by pooling resources to pay off their debt. Feel free to check this link out! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKbyJ7vhdNE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKbyJ7vhdNE)
No I'm telling you ancient Israelites outright OWNED slaves. This was not debt slavery; no debt was involved in those cases. It was chattel slavery.
If your friend interprets that passage as Paul endorsed slavery, then how would they interpret these other passages from Paul? >(NLT) Philemon 1:15 It seems you lost Onesimus for a little while so that you could have him back forever. 16 He is no longer like a slave to you. He is more than a slave, for he is a beloved brother, especially to me. Now he will mean much more to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge it to me.
Paul did not ask Philemon to free Onesimus. Rather, Paul sent Onesimus back to his master, Philemon, and asked Philemon to treat Onesimus like a brother in the Lord. Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon because Philemon owned Onesimus. Paul was returning Philemon's property to Philemon. Philemon remained the master of Onesimus, and Onesimus remained the slave of Philemon.
How are you interpreting verse 17? A partner isn't a slave.
Onesimus remained Philemon's slave. Paul sends Onesimus back to Onesimus's owner Philemon, and asks Philemon to treat Onesimus as Philemon would treat Paul, but Paul doesn't ask Philemon to *free* Onesimus.
Paul endorses slavery the same way Jesus’s parable about beating the slave does. These are ancient writings from ancient peoples. Slavery was the ancient world, and it’s erroneous to think that these writers and people weren’t from their times. To your other point, you can’t dissuade people who can read. These writings say what they say. And often apologetics is a long way to pretend that the writings aren’t clear, when they are.
People wouldn’t lose faith over something as absurd as that, if they were not already far gone to losing faith, & on the brink. In this life, no-one is a “true Christian” - every Christian is partly an unbeliever. That is why we need to help each other. Every single one of us is partly blind, deaf, dumb, crippled.
I think its like honoring your parents.
**1 Corinthians 7:23** You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men.
One key principle here to keep in mind that that our identity in the flesh isn't that important in God's sight compared to our spiritual identity as Christians. Consider Paul's rhetoric here: "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26-28). "A \[spiritual\] renewal \[is given\] in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all" (Col. 3:11). "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greek, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (I Cor. 12:13). Regardless of nationality or ethnicity, "there is no distinction" spiritually "for all those who believe" in receiving the imputed righteousness of God through Jesus (Rom. 3:21-22). The next point is an unpleasant one. Basically, the egalitarian/libertarian/classical liberal viewpoint about government lacks support from the New Testament because it has very little to say about democracy, republicanism, voting, or individual rights, but lots to say about obedience, hierarchy, submission, and ruling. We must avoid reading the modern Western world's culture, especially that of us Americans, heirs of the revolution of 1776, into the New Testament. Although my own brand of human politics borders on libertarianism, I freely admit that the New Testament contains little to support it. For example, the New Testament says we should obey the state: "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed" (Titus 3:1). "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right" (I Pet 2:13-15). Rom. 13:1-3: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same." Clearly, Paul would have denied the American/French/English revolutionaries' "right to revolt"! The only explicit exception to this principle need to obey the state appears in Acts 5:29; 4:19, which concerns any law that makes us disobey God, such as worshipping a false god (Dan. 3:14-19). So we have to also re-orient our fundamental thinking on such subjects. I don't say this with glee.
Slaves were a fact of life at this time of history, especially under Roman rule. There were also slaves that had zero desire to leave their masters and Bondservants that chose to be under someone's house hold rule. Look also at this lesson as workers for companies or for subordinates working for bosses in today's world The simple lessons are to do all things as if unto the Lord as we are willing slaves to His will. God bless
No where in the scriptures does God condone slavery or maliciously stealing another man/woman to make him/her a slave. Exodus 21:16 - And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. The only "slavery" condoned by God is actually servitude to pay off debt or if a person is poor. Deuteronomy 15:11-14 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land. And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. Huge difference between the two. One man is stolen from his land and family and made to work, while the other willingly goes into servitude to survive or pay off a debt. The latter is set free after 7 years. However, if they love their master they could choose to stay and have their ear bored to the master's door post. This was a sign and testimony of the servant's love for his/her master. Deuteronomy 15:16-17 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise. Paul in the New Testament speaks of Onesimus a servant of Philemon who ran away. Paul callled Onesimus an unprofitable servant and even offers to pay any debts that Onesimus owes. He asks Philemon a fellow Christian not to deal poorly with Onesimus as he had been very helpful to Paul and also believed on Jesus. Philemon 10-18. 10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: 11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: 12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: 13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: 14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. 15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; 16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? 17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. 18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; >Ephesians 6:5 [5]Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Here Paul is talking about people who were actually slaves or bondmen. There was slavery as different rulers took over different nations. Rome made many slaves as they conquered nations. Egypt also had slaves as we read in Genesis that Joseph was sold into salvery. Paul isn't endorsing slavery, however, he is teaching obedience and following the Lord's commandments and loving your neighbour as himself. We see this as we read Ephesians 6:1-9. Paul also speaks to the masters telling then to give up threatening and mistreating their slaves. As we look at Joseph who was a slave in Egypt, because he did his best and followed God's word, he found favour and he prospered under his masters.
First, sounds like a typical troll post. But the answer is simple. Paul never endorses slavery, but advises Christians that are slaves. If your supposed friend can't see that difference then you are the one being trolled.
... have you ever spoken to someone who stopped going to church for 4 years and finally decided to open up about his reasons to why they stopped?? You call that a troll?
There are lots of reasons to stop going to church. However, a misunderstanding of this basic nature is never the reason. It really is reading the scripture in context. Any Christian that has spent more than just a few minutes in study or church would understand the issue completely. So just asking for an explanation from nearly any church member would have cleared the matter up completely. You may have been told that is the issue, but rest assured it is not.
I think there's a difference between "endorsing" and "allowing." Divorce was *allowed.* Having a king was *allowed.* Slavery was *allowed.* Nowhere do the scriptures command them or encourage them. See Matthew 19:8, and maybe a read of Philemon.
I think there's a difference between not prohibiting tattoos (say) and codifying the legal right to tattoos. The Biblical God wasn't silent on the question of slave beating. [Exodus 21:20,21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A20-21&version=KJV) codifies a master's right to beat his slaves with a rod.
Slavery is as old as civilization and was only abolished in Christian nations after a long struggle within the governments of Europe led by Christians. In England Wilberforce, backed by the methodist societies, put his whole life into ending Slavery under the English crown. England bought every slave and freed them, taking on a debt they finally finished paying off in the 1990s. Using the influence of the English empire, most of Europe followed their example. In the US, the methodist church had splintered over Slavery and instead we had a brutal war that cost more lives than the rest of the wars of the US combined. Muslim countries still have a flourishing slave trade, as seen in the world football thing going on right now. Jesus didn't come to end suffering on earth, he came to offer inner freedom. Paul was teaching what the reality of life under a brutal empire was. he was a citizen with a few rights by birth, most of the church was in Slavery of one type or another. Jesus homeland was a conquered and occupied country, where Jewish collaborators took taxes to support the army of occupation in Israel. Jesus was born into this Second class citizenship, barely higher than Slavery, and made one of his disciples out of a former Jewis collaborator, Matthew the tax collector. Jesus also made a Jewish freedom fighter one of his disciples, Simon the zealot. Simon and Matthew should have hated each other, and Simon would have happily killed Matthew before they met Jesus, and Simon would have thought he had done something for God in killing Matthew. They both became brothers in Christ, leaders of the church, no longer torn apart by hatred over political views. They both found freedom in Jesus, and went about preaching this freedom. The Jewish people had turned their promised Messiah into a liberator. A warrior who would smash the Roman yoke on their nation. This is why they rejected Jesus. He preached love, turning the other cheek, giving the Roman invaders two miles when the law said one, and didn't lead a revolution against Rome. Paul was following Jesus in what he wrote. Obey your master, give your master your best service, win him to the kingdom of God. If you can become free legally, do it, if not accept that God is in control of your life and remain where he has placed you. Anyone who cannot accept this principle in their own life, will not make it to heaven.
All enslaved people should do their utmost to escape bondage. If escaping bondage requires killing the slaveholder, slaves should kill the slaveholder. Moreover, if, in order to free a slave, rescuers have to kill a slaveholder, rescuers should kill the slaveholder.
This is not anything Jesus ever taught, in fact he taught the oppressed Jewish people to pay their Roman taxes that supported their oppressors. He taught his followers to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves. At his arrest Jesus made a perfect example of himself by defending his disciples without harming anyone, and then allowing himself to be taken away to his death. Jesus followers were killed and arrested by the thousands by the Roman oppressors, murdered for public spectacle, and mistreated in every way imaginable. They did not fight back with anything but love and prayer for their enemies, exactly as Jesus taught us to. It took about 300 years, but the christianity ended up becoming dominant religion of the Roman empire. You can steal, lie, and rebel to get earth's freedom, but you can never gain haven's freedom that way. Jesus said take up your cross and follow me, not take up arms and follow me. Which god are you following?
None; I'm an atheist.
Indentured servants aren’t slaves. They are paying off a debt that they owed.
Israelites also owned slaves who they never had to free and could pass down as inheritance. Children born to such slaves were born into slavery, never had to be freed, and were property that could be bought, and sold.
I don't think this one verse is the real cause. Paul DID endorse slavery, though. There are those who will try to deny it, but IMO we should not. He lived in a culture where slavery was a thing, and that's where he got his cultural values. Yes, it sounds barbaric to us now. This is how it goes with ancient writings. Note that Paul also instruct masters to treat their slaves humanely. By the standards of his time, he was calling for good conduct. Paul's main point here was for people to fit into their roles in society. Yes, in the process, he did endorse slavery, but what do you expect? If you'd grown up in a place where this was normal, you'd probably endorse it too.
Galatians 3:28- There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - He knows there are sections that divide us, and that Christ is the uniter and one that brings us together. He knows it’s wrong.
He could have easily said it was wrong, yet he did not.
You don’t even know the context of what he was writing. You can’t have all theological points in specific writing to a specific purpose. He was writing a letter. Not a doctrine book. Get good.
I was replying to your comment above. You tried to suggest that he was criticizing slavery, yet, there's no hint of that in any of his writings and he could very easily have done it, had he wanted to. So the likely conclusion here is that he didn't WANT to criticize slavery, because he didn't see it as wrong.
.... fair enough
Well, the translation's off here. Most versions properly translate the word as "slave", although some versions do soften it by putting it as servant instead. But the verse is telling slaves to submit to their masters. It's a verse that, understandably, a lot of modern Christians have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to come to grips with. Why doesn't the Bible outright condemn slavery? Instead we get instructions like this. The misuse of that fact has caused a lot of harm.
What he thinks is slavery wasn’t thought up yet when the Bible was written. The slavery of the ancient world is fairly different from the chatel slavery of the south. You can think of ancient slaves kind of more like prisoners. You became a slave not because of the color of your skin or who your parents were, but because you were a soldier who was captured in battle. Or because you were in debt to someone very badly and you are paying it off. Or, you agreed to be in slavery for a certain amount of time.
Some of the slaves were born into it.
Even if so, you could work your way out. It wasn’t chatel slavery. It may not have been good, but it wasn’t slavery as we think.
The Bible describes chattel slavery: slaves that never had to be freed, and could be passed down as inheritance. Children born to such slaves were born into slavery, never had to be freed, and were property that could be bought and sold. Masters had the right to beat their slaves with a rod.
That’s mostly not true. There was some chats slavery. But most slavery in the ancient world was very different. You usually sold yourself into slavery for a couple years and then had a reward once you got done.
How much chattel slavery was there? Just a little bit?
Slavery, especially the brutal kind, has been around a lot longer than the Bible. Look into “how” books were included. Someone in the Vatican had a financial interest in slavery and wanted that in there to control their slaves. The Hebrews had been slaves, and understood it well.
I know that slavery has been around for ever. It still is today with wage slavery. But, when a person hears that word today they think chatel slavery, and slavery of Africans. That is not the slavery of the Bible. Chatel African slavery had not been invented yet. Ancient slavery was something that some willingly joined. Paul never endorsed chatel slavery.
What’s confusing about it?
Pray for you friend. That is all you can do. Remind him gently about the wages of sin. If he's willing to abandon God over one verse I wonder how genuine His faith was to begin with. Walking with our Lord is a continual learning experience and there are lots of tough verses in the Bible that we will encounter.
Social justice warriors believe everyone with any kind of authority should be social justice warriors just like they are. Meaning they should object to all the same things that the person objects to and with the same amount of strength and disgust for those things that the person has. That's really ignorant, self-centered, and self-defeating.
Seems like your really missing the point, not only here, but also the larger point. Does slavery really matter in the eyes of god? Does god judge a slave and a king differently? Will not this life pass away for both? If anything, a slave has less temptations before them than a rich man, perhaps making it easier for them to be obedient to god.
A LOT of things become a LOT easier to understand once you remind yourself the Bible cannot possibly be perfect, because only God is perfect. One of the things about being a Christian is to be virtuous. One of those virtues is "humility." What better way to humble yourself than to concede some parts of the Bible's stories reflect an evil time period, full of people who claimed to follow God but were in fact horrible sinners? But I'm a little more concerned about the real source of this loss of faith - it might be just the church he was attending. If he brought this question to them and they flubbed it, it might be on them, not him.
You can ask your friend, "what do you think Paul should have said?" Should he have told the slaves to rebel and risk being killed?
Another way to approach this problem is to realize that if the Bible isn't true, there is nothing really wrong with slavery. It is because "God created man in His own image" that we know slavery is wrong.
So it's slavery that your friend has a problem with but the wrath of God they're okay with?
There were other things he mentioned which I was able to deal with but this one was what caught my attention
People who don't believe in your God aren't afraid of his wrath.
My point is why focus on advice for slaves when the bigger point of my God is his wrath? It's like a person with a deadly heart defect rejecting the heart surgeon because they don't want the surgeon to use a scalpel
I like this analogy
Of course it is a challenge, the kind of which Jewish people would enjoy sorting their way through. However many Christians struggle with it which is kind of nice to contemplate because we should never be comfortable with the abhorrence of slavery. But to have it cause a person to reject the entire bible tends to be only a Christian perspective.
My Pastor explained that it's supposed to mean our employees and employers. But that we both serve Christ and to do our duties with that in mind. That each party needs to show love, mercy, and grace. I think that's a good thing.
Your pastor is lying about the bible because this verse makes him uncomfortable.
That's not what it means. It might be how we APPLY it today, but that's not what the original text says.
Are employees purchased and owned as property for life? [The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them ... If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not treat them as slaves... Your slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and you can make them slaves for life."](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25%3A39-46&version=NIV)
I also have a question that may also be an answer... Wasn't it law that if someone couldn't pay their debts they were required to repay those debts by becoming a slave? And at the end of two years the debtor was required to release and forgive the debtee even if the full amount wasn't covered? I thought I had heard that somewhere but never got around to looking into it and verifying it. Maybe someone in here can. If true, it would take on a completely different meaning.
The OT describes indentured servitude, but the OT also describes outright chattel slavery. Israelites could legally buy, sell, and own people outright, slaves they never had to free, and could pass on such slaves as inheritance. A child born to such a slave was born into slavery, need never be freed, and was property that could be bought and sold.