Eliezer of Damascus was the trusted slave of Abraham. He managed all of Abraham’s worldly affairs. He was, until Ishmael and Isaac arrived, Abraham’s heir-apparent. We have no reason to believe that he ever tasted the business end of a whip. We have no reason to believe that he was malnourished or ill-clothed or mistreated in any way. We have every reason to suspect that he partook in the prosperity of Abraham.
I prefer my life to his. Freedom is of great benefit, and I desire for all to have it (1 Corinthians 7:21).
Plaguing our conversation about slavery, however, is the ill-founded, overly emotional, untrue presumption not only that freedom is generally preferable to slavery, but that there is no lower level of existence than that of a slave. This is only true if you embrace libertarianism wholeheartedly. For my part, would I choose to be a slave? That depends. A slave to whom? And what are my other choices? I would much rather be Abraham’s slave Eliezer than…
-
…A Lame Beggar in First-Century Jerusalem. To be a slave was to have someone to provide your food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment (such as it existed). Beggars had it far worse. Since they could not work, no one wanted them as slaves. They lived or died by the generosity of passers-by.
-
…An Inmate in the Texas Prison System. Before you get all high-and-mighty about how superior American culture is to slavery-permitting ancient Judea, take a moment to consider the fact that one in three black men in America can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. Yes…I know…you don’t have to lecture me on it…American prisons have color TV and yada, yada, yada. But whatever the amenities, our prison system is an environment in which 200,000 inmates in 2011 were raped. Entirely because of prisons, there are actually more men raped than women every day. Add to that the utter pointlessness of prison life. We think we are so advanced, but Hannibal Lecter was not all wrong when he said, “We live in a primitive time, don’t we, Will? Neither savage nor wise. Half measures of the curse of it; a rational society would either kill me or put me to some use.”
Call me crazy, but I’d much rather live what we imagine to be the life of Eliezer of Damascus than to pass aimless days behind bars trying to avoid sexual predators.
-
…A Steelworker in Andrew Carnegie’s Homestead Mill.
The life of a 19th-century steel worker was grueling. Twelve-hour shifts, seven days a week. Carnegie gave his workers a single holiday-the Fourth of July; for the rest of the year they worked like draft animals. “Hard! I guess it’s hard,” said a laborer at the Homestead mill. “I lost forty pounds the first three months I came into this business. It sweats the life out of a man. I often drink two buckets of water during twelve hours; the sweat drips through my sleeves, and runs down my legs and fills my shoes.”
For many the work went without a break; others managed to find a few minutes here and there. “We stop only the time it takes to oil the engine,” a stop of three to five minutes, said William McQuade, a plate-mill worker in 1893. “While they are oiling they eat, at least some of the boys, some of them; a great many of them in the mill do not carry anything to eat at all, because they haven’t got time to eat.
The demanding conditions sapped the life from workers. “You don’t notice any old men here,” said a Homestead laborer in 1894. “The long hours, the strain, and the sudden changes of temperature use a man up.” Sociologist John A. Fitch called it “old age at forty.”
For his trouble, the average worker in 1890 received about 10 dollars a week, just above the poverty line of 500 dollars a year. It took the wages of nearly 4,000 steelworkers to match the earnings of Andrew Carnegie.
Did Eliezer labor for Abraham? Of course he did. Did he labor in any way approximating the experience of these men? Hardly. And his compensation, measured in terms of quality of life, was far better.
-
…Any Lifelong Minimum-Wage Employee. Of course, there’s a place for minimum-wage jobs. I made minimum wage as a college student delivering pizzas. You’ve got to start somewhere. But no one can build a life around long-term minimum-wage employment.
I’m not saying that you can’t survive on minimum-wage employment. People are creative in making ends meet, and other sources of funds are often involved. Nevertheless, even if you can scrape by on minimum-wage employment for now, eventually age or illness will incapacitate you for your job, and it is nearly impossible for someone working a minimum-wage job to save enough to provide for the needs of old age.
-
…An Abandoned Senior Adult in a Cheap Nursing Home. All of the adjectives in that sentence are important. Not all nursing homes are cheap. Not all senior adults in them are abandoned. But a study from fourteen years ago reported that 44% of nursing home residents claim to have been abused themselves and that 95% have been neglected or have witnessed the neglect of another resident. And every pastor has seen the nursing home resident who has absolutely nobody visiting them or overseeing their care.
Our libertarian culture promotes independence, which certainly has its benefits. Perhaps we see less clearly its drawbacks. Our families are dissolving and our economic system builds no lasting bonds or obligations between employers and employees. Independence is a wonderful thing when you’re young and healthy, but all of us begin life as a dependent, and most of us will end life as one. Highly independent societies are less suited to meeting the needs of those seasons in our lives.
We adapt to this in the United States, of course, by growing government more and more. A full 53% of the entitlement budget goes to senior adults. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid amount to 60% of the federal budget. Whatever you think about where things stand now, it is possible to become a slave to the government. In some ancient Oriental societies, in fact, every citizen was considered to be a slave to the state.
Covenantal Employment
One way of understanding the life of Eliezer of Damascus is to recognize the better forms of slavery as a confluence of work and family. Family is covenantal. For us, in our economic system, the workplace is merely contractual. Although we are thankful for the many benefits of our capitalist wage-labor economy, something inside us keeps yearning for and trying to recover the benefits of covenantal slavery without succumbing to the many ills and wrongs of slavery that led us to abandon it.
One of my Dad’s lifelong friends was Bill Spikes. They were adolescent boys together. Bill was dating Winnie when my dad was dating my mom. Winnie and Mom were cousins and they both attended the little country church where I spent the first eleven years of my spiritual life. There’s a funny story about the time they decided to sing in the choir just to be able to sit near their sweethearts, only to discover as the service was about to begin that they had chosen WMU Sunday to sit down in the midst of an all-female choir.
Bill was a farmer, but farming wasn’t always good to Bill. Dad went off into education, then into politics, then into business. Eventually, in 1987, the last business that Dad started—the one that succeeded—relocated its manufacturing operations into a facility in Monette, Arkansas, where Bill was living. Bill Spikes came onto the Ashley Lighting payroll right away.
Bill had long been a smoker, as had Dad. Bill paid for a lot more tobacco than he enjoyed, however. The warehouse was perennially littered with cigarettes from which Bill had taken one or two puffs, only to set them down in order to free his hands for work and then leave them forgotten on the steel crossbeam of a pallet rack. The amount of smoke he actually inhaled, unfortunately, was enough to give him lung cancer in the mid-1990s. He sought treatment, of course, but as is so often the case, the cancer got the better of him. His health declined. He found himself unable to work much, then unable to work at all. In 1997 (just a few months before Dad also died of cancer), Bill succumbed to the disease and died.
Throughout his illness, no matter how many hours he actually was able to work, Bill’s paycheck kept coming to him. Indeed, after he died, Bill Spikes kept getting paid, until Dad’s accountant read him the riot act and told him he could get into serious trouble for such a thing (In posting about this, I’m making some assumptions about statutes of limitations). Dad felt both a desire and an obligation to care for his sick friend and employee as well as for his family.
I submit to you that my father’s actions are anti-capitalistic. Great Christianity; bad business. I also submit for your consideration that he was acting more like a master and less like an employer. He had ceased to barter with Bill Spikes for goods and services in exchange for a wage. Instead, a deeper, more covenantal relationship took charge.
Dad did not do this sort of thing for everyone. He did not do it for others who were his friends. He did not do it for others who were fellow church members with us. The fact that Bill worked for Dad, in conjunction with Dad’s feelings toward Bill, motivated Dad’s actions.
The employer/employee thing is a transaction. The master/slave thing is a relationship. The transactional part of Bill’s life had ended. He could provide no goods or services for the company. Dad nonetheless felt an obligation toward Bill, not just because of their friendship, but because Dad felt that Bill was under his charge in some way. Under systems of slavery, masters are under obligation to care for their slaves and to provide for their needs. This has been true in almost every slaveholding system. The slaves’ food comes from the master. The slaves’ housing comes from the master. The slaves’ clothing comes from the master. The slaves’ medical care comes from the master. This obligation to care for slaves commenced before the slaves were able to contribute much in the way of work and well after the precipitous decline in their productivity due to old age. It was a cradle-to-grave obligation. The proximity of slave-master instruction to family instruction in the New Testament is informative. Together these “household codes” address the relationships among those who are part of the family. Although there were wage-workers in the epoch (James 5:4, and, indeed, the categories of “slave” and “wage-worker” were not mutually exclusive), slaves were more than workers; they were members of the household.
Now, I’m a free-market capitalist. I do not like this slave system. I do not like it for a number of reasons. Masters often were incentivized to provide the minimum level of care: the poorest food in the household, the worst clothing, the leakiest shelter, and the most rudimentary medical care. I do not like the way that it robs people of their freedom to pursue other alternatives. I also do not like the way that it gives labor no financial incentive to excel in their work. The slave who is more efficient or diligent in his work does not profit thereby. As a result, the only incentive left to give to slaves to elicit their labor is to threaten violence (which Christian masters were forbidden to do in Ephesians 6:9) or to make them so much a part of the family and to make them love you so much that they want to see the whole enterprise succeed. That’s difficult to do with a large workforce, so I favor instead the capitalist system of letting owners and employees have a joint financial stake by which employees get paid for their labor and owners get to make a profit from their efforts.
I will, however, offer this caveat: The biggest drawback of our wage-labor economy is the way that companies take the best years of people’s lives and then send them on their way. I like better than that the relationship between Dad and Bill. I like better than that the relationship between Abraham and Eliezer. I like the idea of employers and employees having, where it makes sense, a more covenantal relationship in which employers take some responsibility for the welfare of their employees. I’m not saying that I want the government to mandate anything like that; I’m just saying that I admire it and see the value of it.
Conclusion
Of course, however good a master Abraham was to Eliezer, you still have the horrible treatment he gave to Hagar. The achilles heel of every system of slavery has been the sinful hearts of the slaveholders. There’s the fatal flaw of slavery that has rendered it unworkable. It places too much power into the hands of sinful men, and they abuse it. But let us not pretend that the Thirteenth Amendment put away forever the abuse of the poor and weak at the hands of the rich and powerful. Jesus told us that we would always have the poor with us. Alas, the same is true of the heartless rich.
Not all of the rich are heartless, however. Slavery in and of itself, separated from the stupidity of racial superiority theories and from the cupidity of robber-barons, can never be the best existence for any human being, but has sometimes been far from the worst.
Bart, another interesting and useful read. It got me thinking about this. Perhaps at any time any one of us can think of some life/existence that would be better (we think) than the one we are in. To what extent should we just accept and run “the race that is set before us” and to what extent should we hope/try/strive to get out of that race into another?
I think the instructions in 1 Corinthians 7 are helpful in this regard. Serve in whichever situation you find yourself. If you can improve your lot, go for it.
Another excellent post.
Robert,
“To what extent should we just accept and run “the race that is set before us” and to what extent should we hope/try/strive to get out of that race into another?”
I have no idea what Bart will say, but I immediately thought of Paul and his God given ability to be content in whatever circumstances (“Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.”).
Then, in Philemon (of all letters in the NT where he is not at all condemning slavery to his brother) Paul the prisoner writes, “At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping that through your prayers I will be graciously given to you.”
Seems to me that he found contentment in his imprisonment and still hoped to be freed. A wise old preacher pointed this out to me long ago.
Blessings brother.
“Slavery may be bad, but things could be worse!”
…
🙂
Not an inaccurate summary.
Of course, in a world where every nation has, at least de jure, outlawed slavery, we’re not having a serious debate about whether slavery is bad today or whether we ought to reinstitute it. Rather, since it seems to me that the topic of slavery is a rather convenient location for us to break our arms patting ourselves on the back—to exonerate ourselves while chastising our forefathers (among our favorite pastimes)—I think it is worthwhile to point out that we do things that are as bad as or worse than slavery.
Do you disagree, Chris?
Bart,
I agree there are other problems that also need to be addressed, but I do not believe that was the point of this post. It’s a common dodge to try and divert attention from one problem by pointing to another. In this case, slavery in the Bible is a real problem – but hey! There are worse things out there! (though I daresay your list includes some pretty peculiar things that you consider worse).
Chris,
I wasn’t trying to dodge anything. I stated my intention in the post: I am trying to point out that people discuss slavery from emotional points of view that are not rational, presuming that slavery is inherently and axiomatically among the worst possible fates that a human being could suffer. By doing so I am trying to move people beyond those perspectives.
You are, of course, correct that the rationale for this series is apologetic in nature. The task that Christians face is to separate Jesus Christ from Jim Crow. I don’t deny or dodge at all that I’m about precisely that work in this series of posts.
I’m not disingenuous about it at all, however. I believe that what I am writing is true. The root evil, as the final post will address, is something that underlies all economic systems and all political systems.
I’m curious to know which of my examples bewilders you. Are there those among my examples for which you wouldn’t make the trade? Something you’d rather be than the be in the shoes of Eliezer?
I can understand a lame beggar and an abandoned senior adult – both terrible situations from which there is no likely escape. But I have known a number of lifelong minimum wage earners who were quite happy with their lives, though no doubt they could have wished for more. Inmates will have an end to their sentence and whatever terrible things may have happened to them in prison will be in their past whereas Eliezer of Damascus would have been a slave for life. Not to mention the fact that prison is not intended to be an enjoyable experience, which is sort of the point, and those in prison are there (usually) due to their crimes. (aside: I’m all for prison reform – it is badly needed – but nonetheless, speaking in general terms, comparing an inmate in prison to a slave is a tad odd). I’m a little on the fence regarding the steel workers; labor conditions in the 1800’s were certainly not comparable to today, but nonetheless options existed and those men chose to stay with that job. They had the choice to leave. Slaves do not.
As an aside, it is somewhat telling that you single out an individual such as Eliezer whose situation was nowhere near typical for the average slave. He was not among the sex slaves I mentioned in previous comments, those who were stolen from their homes following the slaying of their husbands (or, in some cases, sold by their fathers), nor was he among the laborers forced into the field. But even though he had what might be the most desired situation among slaves, he was still a slave and this best-of-possible-slave-situations is still deplorable. I will grant you that I, too, would prefer to be Abraham’s slave Eliezer than stuck in some other situations, but those other situations might themselves be more desirable than the more common slaves of the Old Testament.
Granted, I’ve carefully chosen my example against which to contrast these situations. That’s sort of the point. All I’m reaching for here is to show that the best slave situation is better than a broad swath of the worst free situations. When people acknowledge that, it changes the calculus of the conversation a little, I think.
Eliezer has guaranteed care into his old age even when he is past his working prime. That’s his advantage over the minimum wage person. As for the prison comparison, actually the commission of crimes was one way that many people entered slavery. In my estimation, that made the comparison valid. We would never enslave someone, even for the commission of a crime, but we would imprison him. So, whatever the reasons for imprisoning someone, we have to ask ourselves why we would find it horrifically inhumane to sentence a criminal to be Abraham’s slave but will readily hand him over to the Aryan Brotherhood.
Bart,
Where does the Bible sanction slavery as a sentence for crime?
Chris,
I’m not talking only about biblical slavery. I’m talking about ancient slavery in general. To discuss New Testament teachings about slavery, don’t you think we have to have the broader Greco-Roman practice in mind? After all, Onesimus’s enslavement to Philemon would not have been following any Old Testament guidelines, right?
Bart,
Let’s not move the goalposts. You said you were doing an apologetic regarding biblical slavery. You also say it’s better to be Eliezer than to be in a Texas prison and you explained that by saying crime is one way people became enslaved, but if that wasn’t a way people in the Bible became slaves, then it’s hardly relevant to defending what the Bible says about slavery.
Exodus 22:1-4
John’s scripture in Exodus 22:3 does suggest a person could be sold into servitude to pay off his crime.
Chris, I’m not sure we’re reading the same material. To me it seems that if I had rather be Abraham’s slave than Mother Teresa or me — it doesn’t exactly matter whether Mother Teresa or I are in the Bible. I am still making a statement about biblical slavery. To me it seems the main problem is that Bart isn’t saying what you want him to say.
John,
You and Chris are reading the same material, here and in the bible. Remember though that Chris does not possess the Holy Spirit so when he reads the scripture, he cannot understand the things of God. For Chris it may as well be Popular Mechanics.
Thank you, John.
Chris, you do rightly note that the goalposts need to stay in one place. I have the right, however, to call my own plays.
So, John has rightly pointed out that even in the Old Testament code, slavery was one punishment available for certain crimes. And yet, what is “biblical slavery”? What does the adjective “biblical” mean there? Must it mean “established by the Bible” or can it not also mean “encountered within the Bible”?
Within the Bible we encounter Egyptian slavery, Hebrew slavery, Babylonian slavery, Persian slavery, and Greco-Roman slavery. All of these are “biblical slavery.”
Finally, for me to be able to compare Eliezer’s situation with the life of a modern prisoner does not require that Eliezer be aware of both; it only requires that you and I be aware of both. But the responsibility is upon me to make my point clearly, and I clearly have not succeeded. I will now try to boil it all down to a sequenced list of propositions. This won’t quite be a formal syllogism, but it will get close:
1. New Testament Christianity employs the institution of slavery as a positive metaphor describing the Christian Way and never repudiates the institution of slavery.
2. Slavery has been repudiated (in a de jure sense) universally and is widely regarded as evil.
3. People therefore use Jesus’ and the Apostles’ embrace of (or at the very least, ambivalence toward or accommodation of) slavery as evidence that New Testament Christianity is not a reliable guide to morality.
4. The modern repudiation of slavery, however, came in response to an especially hideous form of slavery that came to a head in the nineteenth century.
5. To equate first-century slavery with nineteenth-century slavery is to commit an anachronism.
6. When judged on its own, apart from nineteenth-century slavery, some forms of slavery encountered in the Bible were as humane as or even more humane than some practices that we readily accept in our own society today.
7. Saying so does not in any way exonerate the perpetrators of what was happening 200 years ago in North America.
8. It does, however, exonerate Jesus against what basically amounts to the charge that He did not institute twentieth-century libertarian capitalism.
Thus, although I think there’s plenty of evidence to defend the whole slavery-as-penal-system argument from the ancient biblical world, I’m only using that element of the essay to accomplish item number 6 in the list above. Thus the question of whether Eliezer knew about or participated in slavery as a punishment for crime is irrelevant. I’m merely seeking to compare the morality of our modern prison system on the one hand versus slavery as practiced by Abraham and Eliezer on the other hand. And I’m doing so merely with the low stated ambition of showing that slavery as an abstract whole cannot logically be classified as universally less desirable or universally less humane than our society as an abstract whole.
Bart,
When you deliver an apologetic, the focus is on the thing you want to defend. I assume you were not trying to defend forms of slavery not instituted by God.
On your syllogisms, one and three miss the point. While I think people can rightly criticize the slave language of the Christian’s relationship to Christ, that is not what people focus on when looking at the morality problem. Rather, it is the fact that the OT instituted and regulated slavery – including sex slavery – while the NT says very little about it, other than (1) tacit acceptance (Philemon), and (2) a recognition that being a slave is not desirable. Christian slaves were told to obtain freedom if they could, but otherwise be content to live as slaves. Considering all the moral positions taken in the NT, it should seem odd at the very least that slavery is not forbidden outright.
On four and five, I have heard this claim often enough but I wonder how true it is – namely, that 19th century slavery is not comparable to 1st century slavery or OT slavery. Your only defense is to point to someone who held what amounted to about the highest possible position for a slave. What about the laborers? What about the gladiators? What about those beaten to the point of injury by their masters only to have the slave masters let off the hook because, hey, the slaves are their money anyway and the slave didn’t die so what’s the harm (Exodus 21:20-21)? If the slave is disabled in some way, he is to be set free (no note that the slave should be paid anything, mind you). Strike out the eye of your neighbor and you suffer like penalty (eye for an eye, etc); strike out the eye of your slave, and you just set him free. Seems a peculiar punishment since that slave would now be of less value to you anyway. Kill a slave and he is to be avenged (whatever that means in the case of a slave), but that’s the only situation that might bring actual penalty against the slave master. Beatings: fine, even if severe. Dismemberment: don’t do it or your slave goes free. Murder: there will be some form of penalty.
I’m not greatly familiar with the various state laws regarding slavery in 19th century America, but there were regulations and restrictions (even if not enforced, and one wonders how well they were enforced in Israel). Considering everything masters were allowed to do with their slaves – including keeping the women for themselves – I’m not sure how one can claim 19th century slavery does not compare.
Back to Eliezer and punishment for crime, I’m not sure why you mention Eliezer knowing slavery could be a punishment for crime; that’s not my point. I was asking if slavery could be a punishment for crime. Exodus 22:1-4 is not relevant in this case, I’m not sure why it was even mentioned. Fines for crimes exist today, and we do not consider them slavery of any sort. Maybe there’s a translation issue, but in the ESV Ex 22:1-4 is about fines levied against lawbreakers.
Les,
Come now, surely you can do better than that! Most Christians will acknowledge that us godless pagans can understand the Bible at a textual level, even if we are incapable of understanding its spiritual significance. Thus Christians have Jewish commentaries and will even consider what non-religious folks have to say about the Bible. I’m not arguing interpretations here, I’m talking very basically about what the Bible says. No spiritual insight needed.
Now, it does take a particular kind of willful ignorance to read what the Bible has to say about slavery and not see it for the atrocity it is. If you want to call it spiritual wisdom, go for it. I’m gladly done with that brand of wisdom.
Speaking of understanding the text, just gave Exodus 22:1-4 another look and I see what I’d overlooked in verse 3. That answers my question: there is one situation in which a lawbreaker might be sold into slavery for his crime. Let a rich man steal and he can just pay off his penalty. Let a poor man steal and he’ll be sold into slavery. A just system indeed.
Chris,
“Considering all the moral positions taken in the NT, it should seem odd at the very least that slavery is not forbidden outright.”
“I’m talking very basically about what the Bible says…”
Really? Case rested.
Les,
Your self-justification is mind blowing. The desperate struggles of the religious who have no solid ground on which to base their position so they must struggle to score the cheapest of points, typically failing to even do that if people are paying attention. But here I am, sinking to your level. Since you have yet to say anything approaching an argument, I’ll kindly just ignore you until you say something worth the time.
Thanks Chris. I started out this short conversation with John I believe anyway. We’re all good.
“Since you have yet to say anything approaching an argument..”
Because I never intended to make an argument with you. That’s why you haven’t seen “anything approaching an argument.”
See, there’s your trouble: False assumption. If there were no accommodations for slavery in the Old Testament at all, one would still face the problem that Jesus did not advocate for the abolition of those extant forms of slavery that existed around Him during His ministry. So, it is relevant to consider every form of slavery that would have been known to Him.
Bart,
So your apologetic is regarding Jesus’ silence, not the Mosaic law’s establishment of slavery?
Right,
The most troublesome aspect for Christians is Jesus’ silence. Not that the Old Testament passages are not problematic for Christians, but because of progressive revelation and the way that the New Testament makes use of the Old Testament, in my opinion, the New Testament situation is more troublesome.
Of course, dealing with the New Testament requires dealing with the Old in some fashion or another, but I’m saying that it also involves dealing with the overall nature of slavery worldwide as first-century Jews knew it.
Bart, you wrote, “The achilles heel of every system of slavery has been the sinful hearts of the slaveholders.” I say a hearty “amen” and add that sin/sinful hearts is the Achilles heel of every system (which goes to the heart of your response to Chris, imo).
I really appreciated the story of Bill Spikes. Oh, how many times have I seen an establishment take the best years of a man’s life and presume on his loyalty, only to cast him aside after they have sucked most or all of the benefit they could get out of him. (This happens to women too, but I used “man” because I am thinking of specific egregious cases I know and the persons involved were men.)
With that I will also add this story from my grandmother that I hope will not detract from the spirit of the responses to your thread. My paternal grandmother was born in the late 1800s in Missouri. One side of her family had supported the Union and one side the Confederacy (all this prior to her birth). Within that Confederate supporting side was one family who had a female slave. After emancipation she stayed with the family as a servant. In her old age, the role changed from her taking care of the family to the family taking care of her. She was no longer of use to them as a servant, but she lived the rest of her life with care and in ease as an honoured and respected member of the family. On the other hand I have witnessed families treat their own mothers with less honour (or no honour) when they was no longer “beneficial” to them and required too much care. I don’t relate this story to say anything about what is right or wrong about slavery, but because the care touched me in a way that your Bill Spikes story did as well. And because we don’t ride such a high horse in the 21st century, after all.
Agreed at all points.
I’m guessing you’ll eventually get to this in your series (unless I missed it somewhere else), but it seems to me that a big problem with declaring that slavery is inherently sinful/wrong is that the Bible refers to us as slaves of God. I would point to John MacArthur’s thorough treatment in his book titled “Slave”. I greatly appreciate your work to help us think biblically on such a tough issue in our day.
Bob,
The previous post addressed that question, although perhaps not at sufficient depth for your liking?
Hey Bart, my reading here has been quite hit and miss lately, so please forgive the oversight. I just read the previous article, and yes, I think you covered the issue well. Obviously there’s always more that could be said, but I think you did a good job and offered some very useful perspective. I was also glad to see the Johnny Mac quote – his book “Slave” holds a special place in my heart as the Lord used it to bring me to surrender my life to Christ.
Grace and peace brother. Thanks for your efforts for the Kingdom.
Bart,
Excellent. Of course, we have grown to expect “excellent” from you. Thank you for blessing me with this post, today. I feel like a smarter man from reading it….and, that takes a lot of doing; believe you me.
David
I appreciate the fact that the bible calls us slaves of God, but let’s not take the analogy too far. Earthly slavery is not a picture of our relationship to Christ. We enter into the relationship voluntarily, and once even in that relationship we are free to obey or disobey. We are also called children and friends and the bride of Christ, so the slave analogy only goes so far. I don’t think you can say that the bible calls us the slaves of God so slavery isn’t bad. If earthly slaves were invited into slavery, came of their own free will, were adopted as sons and daughters into the family of their master with full inheritance, ate at their master’s table, were given gifts by the master and rewards for faithful service, and labored for the master out of love and devotion, then I dare say we wouldn’t have quite the picture of slavery that we do. Yes, it’s the same word. No, it’s not the same thing.
Hi Bill,
You raise some valid points. However, the Bible calls God our Father, but there are plenty of men who have been pathetic fathers – should we therefore infer that God is not a real Father?
Since the Old Testament does offer a positive type of slavery that was beneficial to the slave by removing the danger of poverty, and since the Bible does call us slaves of God, I would argue that the concept of a slave is rightly understood as it is defined by our relationship to God. The fact that man has distorted it just like he’s done everything else (like fatherhood) does not necessarily mean that there’s something inherently wrong with the system itself. I also would not say we are “free” to obey or disobey – that sounds like once we are slaves to God that He no longer cares about sin. On the contrary, rather than being “free” we are surrendering our lives and making a commitment to serve the Lord of righteousness. Our goal is to hear the words “well done good and faithful slave” – not “well, I guess you’re a half-hearted slave but I’ll let you in anyway.” Is it not significant that Paul says we were slaves to sin but are now slaves to God?
You claim it’s the same word but that it’s not the same thing. I’d be curious what exegetical reason you have for making that statement. I understand that it’s an analogy and no analogy can capture everything – but again, the same could be said of being called sons. Should we quit calling God “Father” since this is an analogy too?
Genuinely curious how you distinguish between these things.
Bill Mac,
I think this exemplifies some of what I was getting at in my first post.
If by “slavery” all you can imagine is the chattel slavery of blacks in triangle trade or the cotton plantations of nineteenth-century America, then you’re right, that makes a mighty poor analogy of our relationship with God. However, slavery has come in many more varieties than just those.
“We enter into the relationship voluntarily.” So did some slaves (Deuteronomy 15:12-17).
“…once even in that relationship we are free to obey or disobey.” So are slaves (2 Kings 5:15-27, unless you meant to suggest that we are free to disobey God with absolutely no risk of any consequences).
“If earthly slaves were invited into slavery, came of their own free will, were adopted as sons and daughters into the family of their master with full inheritance, ate at their master’s table, were given gifts by the master and rewards for faithful service, and labored for the master out of love and devotion, then I dare say we wouldn’t have quite the picture of slavery that we do.” But the experience of some slaves was just like that, or at least mostly like that. Wasn’t Eliecer nearly the sole heir to Abraham? Do you have reason to believe that he didn’t love Abraham? Wasn’t devoted to him? That he never received gifts or rewards for faithful service?
Again, the overwhelming problem with this conversation and with this topic is that the moment you say “slavery” in the US people’s minds go to Uncle Tom’s Cabin and are unable to go elsewhere.
The moment I say “factory” you don’t necessarily think of a garment sweatshop in Thailand to the exclusion of all else.
The moment I say “government” you don’t necessarily think of Nero or Stalin to the exclusion of all else.
But conversing about this subject is different. Nevertheless, we must have the conversation because the words of Jesus take us there. With Bob, I wonder what exegetical basis you have to suggest that one of the most common words in the New Testament was used in more than half of its uses not to mean what it meant universally in every other context.
Very good breakdown…. All of us tend to view slavery from one extreme or the other. Understanding the breadth and context of how slavery existed is very beneficial…especially as we teach our relationship to each other within the fellowship of believers. Governments view slavery much differently than the church lives out slavery.
You’re right, I’m reading this mostly through the lens of American slavery. I know you aren’t trying to do this, but I just get this feeling (not from the recent articles, but from a few of the comments in the threads), that some would like to use the bible to sanitize American slavery into something noble and benevolent.
You know, you’re 100% correct. There are people in the world trying to do precisely that.
Hey Bill,
I just wanted to echo Bart’s reply, and also clarify that if that’s how my comment came across that is certainly not what I meant. American slavery embodied a great deal of sin that is worthy of rebuke.
That said, I do think that what Bart is driving at concerning the nature of slavery – and the fact that it is not inherently wrong in and of itself – will greatly help us in focusing on the actual sin in American slavery, which is actually still very much alive today.
Bob,
Very good and insightful comment.
Bart,
So, let me see if I’m understanding you right. You are saying that slavery, in and of itself, was just another economic way that a society operates….for example; there’s capitalism, communism, dictatorships, kings, socialism…and slavery is just another way that society was set up to do business. Owner/Employee and Boss/Worker and Owner/Slave are all just ways that a society tries to operate businesses. AND, that American slavery was wrong and sinful, because of the way that a lot of the Owners treated their slaves like property…some even treated their slaves worse than they treated their animals. They didn’t treat them with the respect and value, which we should treat every man…no matter if he’s an Owner or an Employee….a Master or a Slave.
And, the Bible really neither condones or condemns “slavery.” It’s just the system that was in play at the time that the Bible was written. Also, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t condemn the King system that was going on, in that day. They didn’t push for Capitalism, for example. They didn’t try to change the form of government. Thus, we get the admonitions from the Apostle Paul…if you’re a slave, then work hard for your Master…be a witness by the way you live before them; and if you’re an Owner, then treat your slaves good…with respect and honor as a fellow human being….or, even as a Brother in Christ, if that’s true.
Am I understanding your position right? Am I getting where you’re coming from?
David
I think that this gets pretty close to the arguments of Southern slave holders in the Antebellum period and their theological chaplains who said that slavery was in the Bible and that in a Christian society like theirs, they were doing it well and humanely and were caring for their slaves in a Christian way. It was considered a “positive good.” They tried to regulate slavery and make it a Christian institution and would do so through prohibiting over the top beatings and sexual relations between Master and Slave and things like that.
Then, they would say that the system of slavery that they had was better for everyone because if you set the slaves free, what would they do? They would starve and they would also destroy white society which wasn’t not good for anyone. So, Abolitionists were a bunch of “pie in the sky” do-gooders who had their own problems up North with their factory labor system – situations like Carnegie’s steel mills. So, the institution of slavery in the South was better than any alternative that anyone could imagine because they could not imagine freedom and equality for people of African ancestry. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1820, “But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”
So, I do get your point that a kind-hearted slavery is better than prison rape and starvation and a host of other things like Concentration Camps. But, that is a strange point to make, I think. None of those options are good or desirable, and I think that Scripture would agree.
I do think that the Biblical push for justice in situations where Christians are not the majority or do not hold power is to be yeast in the dough and change human interactions through sacrificial love. The reason that Jesus did not address the institution of slavery is because he was not addressing the kingdoms of this world but was explaining what things were to be like in God’s Kingdom and the manifestation of that Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven through his followers who make up the church.
There is no human slavery in heaven, therefore, slaveowning for a Christian is not what Jesus told us to pray for or live out.
We are also to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we would not want to be slaves, then we should not enslave our neighbor. Slavery was not considered to be a good thing in Scripture or a desired state.
Aristotle’s Natural Slavery that he describes in Politics, Book I should be considered in a discussion on slavery in NT times. In this section, Aristotle explains that the Greek is superior to the Barbarian and all others, that males are superior to females, and that the Master is superior to the slave. He says that it is obvious who the natural slaves are because we see them in relation to their obviously superior masters. It is obvious that Greeks are superior to Barbarians because look at them – they are a mess. So, all of this is obvious. Aristotle tutored Alexander and Alexander spread Aristotle’s philosophy all over the Hellenistic world.
Now, consider Aristotle’s categories: Greek – Barbarian; Male – Female; Free – Slave. Those categories were fixed in society and described who was clearly superior and who was clearly inferior. They were observable.
Then, Paul comes along and plants churches in Greek lands and he says something radically different. He says that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian, or Scythian; neither slave nor free; neither male nor female – but we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29; Col 3:11). Paul addresses all of Aristotle’s categories and applies the Gospel to them and declares that they all fall at the feet of Jesus – in the Church.
So, for Christians who were politically impotent, they had the church to live out the ethic of the Kingdom, which declared that the free and the slave were equal and one. It did not destroy the world system, but it undermined it and equalized it to the point that it could not continue as the church grew. It would die from suffocation.
By the High Middle Ages, it was illegal in Europe for a Christian to own another Christian as a slave. St. Patrick did away with the practice altogether in Ireland in the 400s. The practice was revived in the New World for economic reasons and then theology was twisted to make it all work for those who had power, which goes along with your point that the slaveowner is rarely moral or nonabusive.
I guess that where we differ (if we do) is that I do see in the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul a disabling of the slave system that existed, but it would happen through the church being an outpost of the Kingdom. This is why St. Patrick had no slavery in his monasteries in Ireland and why he helped eradicate slavery in the 400s in Ireland. He got the liberating power of the gospel and applied its implications on pagan Ireland relentlessly.
The Early Church was actually quite effective in changing the slave system of the Greco-Roman society that they were in, but they did so through the Church telling a different story. The reason that slavery was reacquired in America is not because of a fidelity to Scripture, but because of a revival of Greco-Roman philosophy through the Enlightenment that took on a Christian veneer so that it would be accepted by the masses. It was through that Greek philosophy that the defense of slavery came slithering back in as the “natural” state of affairs for superiors and inferiors. This was a decidedly unchristian move and the weakness of the Southern baptists pre-1845 (and thus, after, as well) is that they could not see the mess that they were getting into as they became subverted by the larger culture that was seeped in Enlightenment philosophy and Greco-Roman cultural affection.
I think that I am on solid ground when I say that the trajectory of NT ethics is toward spiritual freedom in Christ that plays out in every area of life, including economics, labor arrangements, and human slavery. While slavery might not be as bad as some things, it is also not God’s design for human flourishing for people made in God’s image and should be rejected by gospel people. Just like Abraham having multiple wives is not considered to be God’s design, his owning Eliezer as a slave should be seen in a similar light.
But, this is obvious – or, it seems that it should be.
Bravo. (since we don’t have a “like” button)
Alan,
I would love for that to be the solution, if only I were convinced that it were valid analysis/exegesis. Here’s my reaction to your comment:
A: “I think that this gets pretty close to the arguments of Southern slave holders in the Antebellum period and their theological chaplains who said that slavery was in the Bible and that in a Christian society like theirs, they were doing it well and humanely and were caring for their slaves in a Christian way. It was considered a ‘positive good.’ They tried to regulate slavery and make it a Christian institution and would do so through prohibiting over the top beatings and sexual relations between Master and Slave and things like that.”
B: Except they were racists. They were supporting a system of slavery based upon the theory of racial superiority/inferiority. That idea is soundly condemned in the Bible.
A: “Then, they would say that the system of slavery that they had was better for everyone because if you set the slaves free, what would they do? They would starve and they would also destroy white society which wasn’t not good for anyone. So, Abolitionists were a bunch of ‘pie in the sky’ do-gooders who had their own problems up North with their factory labor system – situations like Carnegie’s steel mills. So, the institution of slavery in the South was better than any alternative that anyone could imagine because they could not imagine freedom and equality for people of African ancestry.”
B: And, frankly, they DID face some difficult consequences as a result of their sinful choices to enslave an entire race of people (or as many as they could catch, at least). The aftermath of emancipation was horrendous (sharecropping was slavery redux, for example, and then there was the KKK). What Jefferson missed was the sinfulness of his racism.
A: “The reason that Jesus did not address the institution of slavery is because he was not addressing the kingdoms of this world but was explaining what things were to be like in God’s Kingdom and the manifestation of that Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven through his followers who make up the church.”
B: I just find this entirely unsatisfying as an explanation of the state of things in scripture. The data simply do not support it. Jesus was willing to offer an opinion about paying taxes, supporting your parents, marriage and adultery, etc. He did not ignore slavery: He referred to it more times than you have fingers or toes. He never uttered a word even slightly critical of the institution. He was willing to criticize the SAYING of something like “You fool!” but enslaving another person wasn’t closely enough related to “God’s Kingdom and the manifestation of that Kingdom on earth” to merit any comment at all? And when it comes to the behavior of believers, again, Paul had the ideal situation: A Christian slaveholder who owed Paul his very life. Paul did not even HINT that Philemon should emancipate Onesimus. I want to believe what you’re saying, Alan. I think it’s great politics and it aligns more closely with my sentiments. I just think it’s poor exegesis. I think my analysis sticks closer to the biblical data.
A: “There is no human slavery in heaven, therefore, slaveowning for a Christian is not what Jesus told us to pray for or live out.”
B: There is slavery in heaven. All humans are the slaves of God, but are also ruling members of the royal priesthood. It’s like feudalism: vassal to one, liege to others.
A: “We are also to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we would not want to be slaves, then we should not enslave our neighbor. Slavery was not considered to be a good thing in Scripture or a desired state.”
B: I think you need to put more work into demonstrating that the status of Eliezer or Gehazi or Onesimus (if Philemon obeyed Paul), for example, would be considered a bad thing and an undesirable state in the Bible. I freely concede that it is not the summum bonum, but I do not think that your argument from loving one another as ourselves can bear that weight. Neither is it the summum bonum to live under government other than theocracy; yet, it is a positive good to have government and to submit to it. Unless we have gone all the way to a Mennonite rejection of Christian magistracy, we do not believe that it is wrong for a Christian to serve as a mayor or a police officer.
A: “Then, Paul comes along and plants churches in Greek lands and he says something radically different. He says that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian, or Scythian; neither slave nor free; neither male nor female – but we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29; Col 3:11). Paul addresses all of Aristotle’s categories and applies the Gospel to them and declares that they all fall at the feet of Jesus – in the Church.”
B: Agreed. But what’s really being set aside there is the theory of superiority/inferiority. That undoes Aristotelian slavery because this Greco-Roman philosophy of slavery depended upon this idea of superiority/inferiority, as did the “peculiar institution” of the South. The question is whether Abraham’s relationship with Eliezer or Elisha’s relationship with Gehazi were also based upon ideas of superiority and inferiority of races. I know of no reason to think so.
Well, I’ve gone on long enough. Let me find a suitable concluding thought.
HERE’S where we differ: You think an exegetical case can be made that Jesus really was teaching the abolition of slavery in any and all forms, albeit coyly. I find that exegetical case to be unconvincing. As a result, I have to look for something else, right? If you could convince me, Alan, I think I’d really be much happier with that. You just haven’t managed to do so.
Perhaps I’ll defer my last post and let you write a post giving that another shot. Perhaps at the end of that we’d both be pleased.
Bart, you say to Alan that you “find that exegetical case to be unconvincing.” I agree. I am not “satisfied” with what I find, but my method of Bible study does not seem to allow me to find just what Alan has found or what I would like to find.
In your post “Why We Find It Difficult to Talk about Slavery,” Chris R. said something to Les P. about what he was showing from the Bible made Les uncomfortable. Les replied that he was not uncomfortable about what the Bible says. Though I mostly agree with Les, and disagree with most everything that Chris has written, I cannot agree with Les that I’m not uncomfortable with some of what the Bible says about slavery, especially in the law. But I am not uncomfortable about the Bible itself, for I believe it is God’s Word. What I am uncomfortable about is whether we have replaced the Bible message with American libertarian ideals (yes, even though I lean “Libertarian” politically). Does that mean we should have slavery today, or should have had it from 16-whatever to 1865? No. What it means, I think, is that we have exceptional difficultly discussing the subject because of all the weight we must lay aside first in order to (biblically) do so.
Re the law, I also uncomfortable that some “Christian” explanations seem to clock Israel as only one “evolutionary step” above Neanderthals and that God is just accommodating them with bad rules that are only slightly better than the evil that existed around them. On the other hand, what Jesus says to the Pharisees about divorce in the Law and in the beginning makes it clear that (at least in this area of behaviour) that God did make some accommodation for the “hardness of their hearts.”
I am traveling today, so I cannot respond in detail. I will try to write a post tomorrow or respond here in more depth. After reading all of your statements, we agree on more than we disagree on, I think – but what we do seem to disagree on has significance. As always, looking forward to more dialogue! I just stopped for a quick lunch on the road and can’t type a long response on my phone.
Thanks!
Alan, this is the essence of the trajectory you speak of I believe…”The reason that Jesus did not address the institution of slavery is because he was not addressing the kingdoms of this world but was explaining what things were to be like in God’s Kingdom and the manifestation of that Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven through his followers who make up the church.” That way of thinking makes a lot of people stumble through how to handle man’s desire and God’s royal law.
You make excellent points IMHO.
“I think that I am on solid ground when I say that the trajectory of NT ethics is toward spiritual freedom in Christ that plays out in every area of life, including economics, labor arrangements, and human slavery.”
Yes!
And Thank you for the historical analysis.
Or as another put it,
“Let there be no mistake here—the logic of the Christian gospel is contradictory to the institution of slavery generally, and as the gospel of salvation progresses through history, one of the necessary results is the gradual eradication of all slavery. Jesus Christ really is the ultimate Jubilee.”
“The Early Church was actually quite effective in changing the slave system of the Greco-Roman society that they were in, but they did so through the Church telling a different story.”
Agree and that is the way forward today – not by calling on the federal government to make more laws – or necessarily but holding conferences and summits (not to say that these are all bad by any means) but by actually preaching the gospel of Christ in thereby transforming the culture with the Christ and gospel centered way of thinking and interacting with it.
This is my view, includes the idea of dispelling the notion of “race identity” and embracing the biblical reality that the gospel breaks down all walls – we must teach and live out that the connection/identity/union between Christian brothers and sisters should not have any other foundation than that of Christ.
Ie…
“Then, Paul comes along and plants churches in Greek lands and he says something radically different. He says that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian, or Scythian; neither slave nor free; neither male nor female – but we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29; Col 3:11). Paul addresses all of Aristotle’s categories and applies the Gospel to them and declares that they all fall at the feet of Jesus – in the Church.”
He did not plant churches for this ethnic group or for that ethnic group – in fact just the opposite. His only call for racial reconciliation – or any other kind of reconciliation for that matter – was an “imploring to be reconciled to God”.
We are not our own – we are slaves – the gospel is a call to leave the slavery and bondage of sin and death by taking up your cross, and following Christ (as a slave) to the Lord of lords and King of kings who is totally just and totally righteous and this grants ultimate freedom and everlasting life to those who believe.
We are all slaves to a master of some sort – all masters but one leading to misery and death – but praise be to God! That those who are slaves to the One who justly owns, that being our Creator are truly made free.
The thing is though, that when we talk about being politically impotent and relatively powerless in society, we are talking about the Early Church. My problem with Douglas Wilson’s thesis in Black & Tan is that he applies that perspective to the white Christians in America who DID have political and economic and social power. They controlled everything. So, the responsibility is different. If we DO have power to bless others and serve others and set captives free, then we should do so – or use that power to influence others. William Wilberforce is a good example of this, I think. He used his position to benefit others who had no power.
Because we used our power for ourselves, largely, and sought to defend our own “way of life,” we are now rapidly losing the cultural power that we once had. To whom much is given, much is required. Southern Baptists should have been the ones tearing down the walls of segregation in the South and we should have joined with African Americans in the 1950s and 60s when the issue was brought to light – before actually. The people enforcing segregation laws were also in our churches. We could have changed things.
While it is true that Jesus speaks of a spiritual kingdom, it is a kingdom that manifests on earth and affects things – everything. We went along with the status quo and are paying the price now with a loss of witness, I think.
As for putting aside race/ethnicity, I do not think that the Bible calls for that. In Revelation, we see every tribe, people, nation, and tongue gathered before the throne. Ethnicity continues and it should be seen as a gift from God. But, the differences no longer divide us. They can be celebrated and enjoyed, but we are now one in Christ. Our identity in Christ is now stronger than our ethnic/racial identity, and that goes for white Southerners, too.
So, back to Bart’s point on slavery. We can definitely affirm that we should all be slaves to Christ. And, we can also say that some forms of human slavery might be better than other forms of degradation comparatively. But, the higher truth is that Jesus sets the captive free and that freedom and blessing extends out from us spiritually and ultimately affects every area of life that we have dominion over. If we DO have economic and political power, then we should use it to bless and benefit those who do not and I think that that is part of what it means to love one’s neighbor as yourself.
A: “So, back to Bart’s point on slavery. We can definitely affirm that we should all be slaves to Christ. And, we can also say that some forms of human slavery might be better than other forms of degradation comparatively. But, the higher truth is that Jesus sets the captive free and that freedom and blessing extends out from us spiritually and ultimately affects every area of life that we have dominion over. If we DO have economic and political power, then we should use it to bless and benefit those who do not and I think that that is part of what it means to love one’s neighbor as yourself.”
B: I pretty much agree entirely with that. I only stop short from saying that things like the relationship between Abraham and Eliezer were utterly incapable of being a vehicle, in that time and context, for delivering blessing and benefit from Abraham to Eliezer.
I am confused about Abraham. Why would he be anything more than an example of a Pagan who believed Yahweh?
He pretty much handed over his wife to a ruler who had more scruples than he did. And so on all the way over to him and Hagar, etc.
I would think his example for us would be of a pagan living in a pagan world who heard from the “One True God” and believed him. Other than that, what is the point? If Abraham had a slave that means it was God’s design?
This is a good point, Lydia. Not everything described in the Bible constitutes the will of God.
Alan: Exactly!
Here’s a scorecard on the ongoing dialogue between myself and Chris Roberts…myself and Alan Cross, for those who are trying to keep up, as far as I can tell it:
1. The slavery that William Wilberforce and Frederick Douglass opposed was evil
Bart: Agree
Alan: Agree
Chris: Agree
2. All slavery, regardless of how it is conducted, is evil.
Bart: Disagree
Alan: Agree
Chris: Agree
3. The slavery commended in the Bible is spiritual and metaphorical, and is unconnected with actual slavery to some significant degree.
Bart: Disagree
Alan: Agree
Chris: Disagree
4. The New Testament position is an unequivocal repudiation of all forms of slavery.
Bart: Disagree
Alan: Agree
Chris: Disagree
5. It is a positive thing that we have eradicated slavery today.
Bart: Agree
Alan: Agree
Chris: Agree
6. There are principles of Christian living that, if implemented, remove much of the monetary incentive to own slaves.
Bart: Agree
Alan: Agree
Chris: ?
7. Racism is evil and any idea of racial superiority or racial inferiority is anti-Christian and evil.
Bart: Agree
Alan: Agree
Chris: I think even he would agree
1. agree
2. disagree
3. disagree
4. disagree
5. agree
6. agree
7. agree
And, here’s David’s answers to this, as well….in case anyone was wondering…. 🙂
I’m still thinking through a lot of this but as it stands right now I think I can say;
1 agree
2 disagree
3 disagree
4 disagree
5 agree
6 agree
7 agree
My thinking has been honed and sharpened thanks to this series from Bart – thanks again Bart!
Re #3, surely you do not mean that slavery in the OT was just metaphorical or that NT slaves weren’t really slaves? The only instance in which the slavery language is spiritual (though not, I think, metaphorical, per se) is when Jesus uses it of Christians – according to the Bible, human beings (Christian and otherwise) are supposed to obey God’s every command and are supposed to seek to follow the will of their master on any action they take. Any deviation from their master’s will merits punishment.
In the case of Jesus, I don’t really object to his use of slave language to describe humans in bondage to God since at the end of the day no one is God’s slave. I do think it should at the very least cause us to raise our eyebrows that Jesus, who had so many specific things to say about so many people and situations, never says anything about this practice so prolific throughout history. It took human reason (and war) to finally do what Jesus did not do: end slavery. Though even on that point we still have work to do.
Chris,
If you’ll go back and take a look, I disagreed with #3.
Neglected to comment on #6 and #7.
Re #6, which principles are those? A slave owner can show compassion to his slave while still profiting from his labor. And while I daresay that love for one’s fellow human being precludes owning that human being, God evidently saw things differently.
On #7, racism and racial superiority are certainly wrong. Racial and cultural superiority were engrained on OT Jewish life but Christianity, growing in the melting pot of ancient Rome, could not continue it in the same form.
That I chose “much” rather than “all” gives some indication of my acknowledgement that a slave owner “can show compassion to his slave while still profiting from his labor.” It’s just that the true economic bonanza of slavery comes from driving slaves abusively and providing for them in a miserly fashion.
You have to feed, clothe, shelter, and medicate slaves. You have to do so for their children and then for them in their old age. Wage-paying becomes more attractive when you truly start to undertake those burdens of slaveholding without extracting herculean amounts of labor from the slaves.
Thanks on #7. I would say that the racial and cultural superiority idea in Old Testament Jewish life is not so much as some people suggest. Job the Edomite, Rahab the Canaanite, Ruth the Moabite, and a broad array of such characters disprove this misconception. Jews MADE it into a racial superiority thing (which makes them like all the rest of us).
Here’s my 1.5¢ scorecard
1. Agree, with the understanding that the system was evil, but that all Christian slaveholders did not behave equally as evil within the system
2. Disagree
3. Disagree
4. Disagree
5. Agree, with the understanding of “to the extent we have eradicated it” — Iow, it still exists in some places and forms
6. Agree
7. Agree
(And all this with the understanding that all our finger-pointing at past evil does not make 21st Christian Americans less evil than our forebears, just evil in different ways. It is easy to condemn in others what we approve in ourselves, such as the “Christian” husband defending traditional marriage against homosexual marriage, while treating his wife as just so much trash under his feet.)
Question:
Would it have been wrong in the mid 1800s for a church to receive into membership a godly man who owned slaves?
Les,
And thus, the SBC came into being….
David 🙂
I know Vol. But I really wonder what people think. Is it possible that a godly Christian church member could also be a slave owner? Would the church then have absolutely erred in admitting him into membership or nor necessarily erred?
I am still trying to wrap my head around “godly slave owner”.
It is one thing to become a new believer while you own slaves and then treat them as a brothers in Christ even in a culture that promotes putting runaway slaves to death.
It is quite another to be a “godly slave owner” seeking to institutionalize the bondage of another human being in a land that declared all humans are endowed by their creator….
They had to declare them “less than human” to live in that cognitive dissonance. And that is what they did. And yes, many worried over it and wrote about it. I give them credit for at least touching on the subject. The ones I cannot stomach are the ones who try and make it “godly” to own slaves. That is attributing to God what is NOT from Him.
There are many things modeled in scriptures that are not part of God’s intention for His creation. Polygamy is one. Since I am not a determinist, I see God meeting people were they were as in allowing and regulating certain things in a very pagan culture. If we need a law spelled out that slavery is wrong, I think we have missed the larger picture of God’s intention for His creation.
I have had much experience in being a part of trying to change cultural thinking in organizations. It is a huge task and takes years. I take that small example and look at entire cultures/tribes. It can take blood, sweat, tears and worse to change cultures.
The worst thing to happen to Jews was to be in bondage. Rescue is a major theme in scripture. Are we not to “rescue” people in physical bondage, too?
At the very least why would we think it is “good fruit” to keep people in bondage?
I see this as a fruit situation. What the “godly slave owners” did is to produce rotten fruit– for generations. We are still living with the result of their “continual practiced sin” they claimed was of Christ. That is a part of the rotten fruit of institutionalized sin
Why can’t we simply say it was evil? It was wrong. There is no way it was every God’s intention? Because we have too many hero’s who excused it because they were teaching them the Gospel? What they failed to see is that they were not living out the Gospel.
Lydia,
I do understand the difficulty. But then there’s this:
“Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have **believing masters** must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.”
There is no qualification here. No admonition to free their slaves. Just instructions both ways.
“There is no qualification here. No admonition to free their slaves. Just instructions both ways.”
Les, if you are taking that as justification then the fact our country was founded was sin.
Is there no room in determinism for people/nations/tribe to mature in their thinking about bondage, human value, etc?
BTW: Where is the admonition for the believer to get rid of his extra wives?
“Les, if you are taking that as justification then the fact our country was founded was sin.”
I’m not.
“Is there no room in determinism for people/nations/tribe to mature in their thinking about bondage, human value, etc?”
There is room in God’s sovereignty over all things for societies to move past sinful manifestations of slavery such as occurred in the 1600s into the 1800s in the US. The gospel trajectory would end up there, as was already happening in some quarters in the US at the time.
“BTW: Where is the admonition for the believer to get rid of his extra wives?”
Did I miss the NT regulations for multiple wives?
“There is room in God’s sovereignty over all things for societies to move past sinful manifestations of slavery such as occurred in the 1600s into the 1800s in the US. The gospel trajectory would end up there, as was already happening in some quarters in the US at the time. ”
Well, I am not a determinist and I believe man has volition so I do think that 19thC “godly” Christian slave owners should have known better that buying a human for hard labor and bondage was sinful. Or that separating families was NOT living out the Gospel.
What rotten fruit. And using the Bible in its 1st Century context to excuse such rot a thousand years later is indefensible.
They also believed stupid things like the “curse of Ham”, etc to justify their position. But that is determinism for you.Cognitive dissonance all around. It is one of the reasons I despise it. It devalues humans and makes God into a monster who loves some but not others. Oh, you were born to be a slave so be a good slave.
I call it “I am glad I am not you, Gospel” Praise God he did not see fit for you to be born a slave since He determines everything.
Sort of like how the Pharisees prayed.
They took the same verse you are using to justify their behavior. Very profitable.
And how subjectively they understood “treat them well”, I wonder?
“Did I miss the NT regulations for multiple wives?”
According to your interpretive grid that means it is ok. It was practiced by Second Temples Jews in Palestine..at least those who could afford it.
The mid-19th century “godly slave owner” is probably a deal breaker today because it is so close to declaring slavery to be a positive good. Ah, yes, John C. Calhoun, the good Christian master lifts the savage out of ignorance and hopelessness. No one is so indelicate to say it quite so pointedly but we’ve clearly been in the neighborhood.
This is probably one reason we white folks in our mostly white churches have difficulty with a genuine multi-racial congregation. Can you watch the mixed congregation as the learned reverend expounds on this general theme? We’re thinking sterile academics and interesting history. They’re squirming uncomfortably in their seats. Skilled and knowledgeable expositors may be sensitive enough to avoid this but, manifestly, it hasn’t been avoided here in some cases.
No doubt many of the brethren could go to the 1850 or 1860 census and attendant slave schedules and find that their ancestor owned slaves – click, click, click…”wow, I didn’t know that.” It’s that easy.
I may be the only contributor here whose ancestor’s former slave left a written record of some of her slave experiences when my GGG-grandfather owned her. Now that provides some context to a discussion. Although I’m not one for wringing my hands about vicarious guilt, such does make me squirm just a bit.
“The mid-19th century “godly slave owner” is probably a deal breaker today because it is so close to declaring slavery to be a positive good.”
Close, but no cigar.
And I will say I think a godly man who was also a slave owner in mid 1800s could be a faithful Christian and church member.
Your phrasing is somewhat begging the question. You call him a godly man while also asking about his place in the church based on his slave owning. It seems one would first ask whether it is possible to be a “godly man” while owning slaves. It’s already plain how you will answer that question, disturbing as that answer may be.
Chris,
Can a person be admitted into church membership in mid 1800s if he or she is also a slave owner, and said church still be being a faithful church in doing so?
And, to your point, can a person be a godly man while owning slaves in mid 1800s?
Could a person be a godly man while committing adultery? Murder? Theft? Hatred? Have we not already established that the chattel slavery of the 19th century absolutely violated a number of biblical precepts?
A person may be faithful in some areas while not being faithful in others. We don’t require a person to be sinless to become a church member, but we obviously think some things disqualify a person.
Temple prostitution was a common and everyday institution at the time of the NT. Should 1st century Christians be admitted to membership if they frequented temple prostitutes?
Can a person be godly and own slaves? According to the Bible, God is okay with slavery, so I guess so. Is such a person morally good? No.
Bill Mac,
I appreciate the intent of what you say. But did God regulate believers’ actions in these areas adultery? Murder? Theft? Hatred? i.e. did he tell adulterers to be good adulterers and do their adultery as unto God (Eph. 6)? And then there’s Philemon.
Then Bill Mac, there are these passages:
Bondservants,[a] obey your earthly masters[b] with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant[c] or is free. 9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master[d]and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
Bondservants,[f] obey in everything those who are your earthly masters,[g] not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants[a] regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. 2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.
Les: We’re not talking about being good slaves. We’re talking about participating in an endeavor that no one can credibly argue was not absolutely forbidden by scripture. American chattel slavery was borne out of greed, racial supremacy, and kidnapping. Did you see the quote I posted from Jefferson Davis?
Bill,
“American chattel slavery was borne out of greed, racial supremacy, and kidnapping.”
No one here that I can see is arguing that.
And the slavery in the 1st century was evil through and through. But it was nevertheless a society with slavery built in. As has been noted here already, there is no NT evidence that anyone said, “stop it! and “free your slaves!” On the contrary, the NT (see verses above) tells people living in that kind of culture how they should then live as Christians. How to treat their slaves well and how as a slave to serve his master well.
“Did you see the quote I posted from Jefferson Davis?” But his statement doesn’t nullify what the NT says on this subject.
So slavery is ok as long as you didn’t start it? If somehow slavery was again made legal in this country and we started enslaving some poor tribesmen from one place or another, our response as pastors or elders should not be to advocate abolition but rather how to treat our slaves well? And you would accept into your membership slave owners?
I don’t know if there is anyplace in the world where slavery is legal, but if there was and we sent missionaries there, would we want them to buy up some slaves as long as the culture allows it and they treat them well?
I don’t know how you can reconcile “Slavery is evil” with “just go with it as long as it is a slave owning culture”.
No one has really addressed what “treating slaves well” means. Employees can be fired if they don’t work. But it seems to me the only recourse if slaves don’t work is to beat them, or perhaps withhold life essentials from them. What if they try to escape? How much of a beating falls within “treating them well”?
No Bill Mac I am not saying slavery is ok at all. And I don’t mean this the way it is going to come across, but your argument is with the NT instructions about slavery, not with me.
And I didn’t say I nor anyone else shouldn’t advocate that slavery end (assuming I woke up one day living in such a culture). Chattel slavery is wrong. Simply wrong. But Christians growing up in and living in such a culture have certain obligations per the NT to live biblically even in a crooked and perverse culture.
I know it’s not the same as slavery by degree, but how often some of my kids have come home complaining about certain of their teachers in school as being unfair and mean and vindictive. On occasion it is obvious they have been mistreated. What principle from the NT applies? Live the gospel even in the face of mistreatment, yea even persecution.
If most of the guards at a prison abuse, beat and otherwise mistreat prisoners, what is the Christian guard to do? The NT tells him what to do.
I realize in our culture there is no direct comparison that can be made to chattel slavery, but I think you can see what I mean.
The slave trading of the South (and Northern states) was evil. No doubt. But does the bible speak to Christians living in such a culture? Yes as I have quoted above. The NT tells owner and slave how to live in such a situation.
Many Southerners did in fact oppose the slave trade, maybe the worst part of the sins of the South…certainly the fountainhead. I believe Virginia was the first to outlaw the practice.
Nevertheless I come back the quoted scriptures above. Those should be the guide.
Bill Mac,
I keep coming back to this.
“Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants[a] regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. 2 Those who have ***believing masters***
If a believer (note how scripture assumes a believer could be a slave owner) per the bible should **never** own a slave, then why doesn’t it just say so? Why the commands as how to be a Christian slave owner?
Why doesn’t say something like, “Masters, free your slaves!?”
Les,
“Chattel slavery is wrong.”
Can you tell me the difference between OT slavery, 1st century slavery, and chattel slavery? Please do so without words like “greed” or “racism” since these were not always a feature in 19th century America, and were not absent from Rome or ancient Israel and thus are not distinct features of chattel slavery.
Les,
“Why doesn’t say something like, “Masters, free your slaves!?””
Indeed.
Chris,
I’m fairly tied up for a while. I’ll be back later tonight.
Les: If American slavery was wrong, then participating in it was wrong. 2+2 doesn’t equal 5.
You haven’t really answered the question: What does treating them well look like? What does a good Christian slave owner do with a disobedient slave?
Christianity was born in a slave owning culture. American slavery was born in an ostensibly Christian culture. There is a difference. Yes, slave owners were instructed to treat their slaves well. I dare say a lot of 1st century slave owners became Christians after they already had slaves. But American slave owners had no such excuse. They already had the biblical commands against greed, racial superiority, and kidnapping. There was absolutely no excuse or justification for participating in American slavery. As such the Christian church had no justification for condoning the practice of it.
No, I don’t have a problem at all with the NT commands for slaves and masters. I’m not an expert on the culture in that time period, but as I say, Christianity was born into the Roman period and slavery was part of that culture. Social justice is not wrong but social justice was not a big imperative for the early church. I have no problem believing that the slavery commands were for that culture alone, and perhaps by extension intended for other master/servant situations in the future. Slave were told to obtain freedom if they could. Masters were not told to free their slaves, it’s true. But perhaps freeing the slaves isn’t as simple as it sounds. It may be that freed slaves would have suffered if they were just cut loose. It may be that many of the slaves were slaves because of debts they were working off, and so there would be no moral imperative to free them. I would also point out that Philemon was encouraged by Paul to receive Onesimus back not as a slave but as a brother.
Chris,
Sorry for the long delay. With kids home from university, I relish getting time to spend with them, such as last evening.
“Can you tell me the difference between OT slavery, 1st century slavery, and chattel slavery?”
I’m not sure how to respond to this. Chattel slavery was a feature in some manner in all slavery as far as I know. I’m certainly not an expert on every kind of servitude that may have been practiced in all generations.
Bill Mac,
“What does treating them well look like? What does a good Christian slave owner do with a disobedient slave?”
The bible tells the master how to treat the slave, and all others for that matter.
“Christianity was born in a slave owning culture. American slavery was born in an ostensibly Christian culture. There is a difference. Yes, slave owners were instructed to treat their slaves well. I dare say a lot of 1st century slave owners became Christians after they already had slaves. But American slave owners had no such excuse. They already had the biblical commands against greed, racial superiority, and kidnapping. There was absolutely no excuse or justification for participating in American slavery. As such the Christian church had no justification for condoning the practice of it.”
Certainly at least some slave owners became owners as they grew up in such a culture and grew up to work the family plantation and/or inherited the plantation, incl. the slaves.
Bill Mac, we are going to disagree here obviously. I think it is plausible that a Christian man could own slaves, treat them biblically and be a member of a church in good standing in mid 1800s. You disagree.
God bless brother.
Les: The bible does tell masters not to threaten their slaves, and to give them what is just and fair.
Was keeping slaves in 19th century America just and fair? What crime was committed by the Africans so that slavery was their just punishment? How is owning another person because you believe them to be inferior, and making them work so you don’t have to, fair? The same bible tells people to submit to one another and to treat them as we would want to be treated. In what scenario does that justify owning another human being? Did masters submit to their slaves? Did they treat them as they would want to be treated?
I just can’t see how to reconcile the universal condemnation of American chattel slavery we’ve seen on this thread, with the idea that people can participate in this evil without condemnation of that part of their life.
A few proof texts aside, I cannot see how a fair reading of the entire NT results in the godly slave owning society of the 19th century.
Bill Mac,
“A few proof texts aside, I cannot see how a fair reading of the entire NT results in the godly slave owning society of the 19th century.”
First, referring to those texts as “proof texts” seems like you’re trying to minimize their relevance to this subject. In my view, they are foundational to the subject.
Second, the 19th century slave owning *culture* was not godly. It was judged by God. But that doesn’t mean that individuals were not godly as slave owners in the midst of that society.
Third, on this particular back and forth between us, you my brother have the last word if you wish.
Hi Les,
The reason I called them proof texts is not because they aren’t relevant, but that they must be understood in the whole message of the NT which, in my view, simply doesn’t allow the word “godly” and “slaveowner” to be accurately used to describe what happened in 19th century America. It seems the slaveowner, even if adhering to those slavery texts, must ignore pretty much the rest of the NT. In fact, I find it hard to imagine how they actually obeyed even those slavery texts, because it demands that enslaving those of another race is both “just” and “fair”. I know you are tiring of this exchange but if you come back, could you please explain to me how owning someone of another race for forced labor is either just or fair? Honest question.
If it is possible to be both godly and slave-owning, then it seems the apology by Southern Baptists was not sincere but merely for PR purposes.
Bill Mac I’m willing to go a little more on your last questions. But it will be later. At a gas station now and lots of things I need to get done on my Haiti ministry. So maybe later today or tonight.
Thanks
Bill Mac,
Sorry for the long delay. Lots going on these last few days. You last said, “I know you are tiring of this exchange but if you come back, could you please explain to me how owning someone of another race for forced labor is either just or fair?”
Bill what I’m saying is that what happened in 1st century slavery as a system was wrong. But, the NT not only didn’t call for it to be done away with, but the NT instructed Christians how to live and conduct themselves Christianly within that pagan system. Slavery per se is not condemned in the bible. Man stealing and many other abuses are. Christians finding themselves in the midst of and operating within an unjust slavery society have biblical instruction on how to live in that context.
Thanks brother for the exchange.
Les,
And thus, the SBC was started….
David 🙂
Would the church who considered receiving the godly slaveowner as a member also receive his godly slaves as members? Would they have had the same rights and privileges as church members as the men who owned them?
And I don’t mean did this ever happen, I mean would this have been the norm?
I’ve just been reading that many plantation owners were not keen on their slaves attending church or even learning to read, lest they get the idea that some of the teachings of Jesus might favor the equality of all men. What an idea.
Bill,
I’d be curious to see the source on that. I can see not wanting them to read, but Christianity was frequently a tool of colonialism. Masters liked teaching their lessers to submit to those in authority, to be content in every circumstance, to look forward to heavenly reward rather than earthly, etc. On these points, Christianity did the job very well. Just consider this well known spiritual: “I got shoes, you got shoes, all God’s children got shoes! When I get to Heaven gonna put on my shoes I’m gonna walk all over God’s Heaven!” So the slaves were taught that sure, things were tough on earth, but good things waited for them in Heaven!
“I can see not wanting them to read, but Christianity was frequently a tool of colonialism. Masters liked teaching their lessers to submit to those in authority, to be content in every circumstance, to look forward to heavenly reward rather than earthly, etc. On these points, Christianity did the job very well.”
It depends on what “Christianity” you are talking about. Yes, the Calvinist Boers instituted A partied and we see the same trajectory in much of Protestantism and Catholicism.
But what about the Quakers? Ana Baptists (they were not monolithic so forget Munster) and so on. They read scripture very differently and lived it out differently.
Perhaps we are too broad in what we attribute as “Christianity”?
Chris: It was random browsing. Nothing authoritative.
2. All slavery, regardless of how it is conducted, is evil.
Bart: Disagree
Alan: Agree
Chris: Agree
*We have heard Bart’s explanation.
*I assume Chris agrees that the OT condones slavery, but believes it to be wrong in doing so.
*I would be interested in hearing Alan’s explanation of God seemingly condoning slavery in the OT. (perhaps I missed it somewhere).
I’m pretty sure “do unto others” and “love your neighbor as yourself” is difficult to reconcile with enslavement, forced labor, and “reasonable” beatings.
“Why doesn’t say something like, “Masters, free your slaves!?””
Indeed.”
It does. It says, “Love your neighbor as yourself”. If “yourself” does not want to be a slave, what more would you need by way of admonition?
How much more clear does it need to be? You want a God that forces people to behave righteously. And when He doesn’t. That means something very strange to you. God is controlling every molecule, eh?
Lydia,
God tells people to do things like “observe the Sabbath day” and “do not take God’s name in vain” and “do not do anything with your private parts not specifically permitted of man and wife” and “do not marry people who are not Christian” and the list goes on and on. One might assume “love your neighbor as yourself” also covers items such as “do not murder” or “do not steal” it should also cover “help those in need” yet God felt the need to mention those items specifically. We are never told not to engage in slavery. The oversight is telling. It is not covered by “love your neighbor”.
Chris, We are also not being rescued from hundreds of years of slavery under a pagan dictator. are you suggesting that pagan thinking did not influence the Jews and their thinking? when I look at the law I look at it with that backdrop in mind. they literally had to become acquainted with Yahweh. it makes total sense to me He would do it in a way they could relate to.
Marry a Christian? read that through the lens of first century Palestine under Roman rule and the challenges of being a “Christian” in a Hebrew culture under Roman rule. We see lots of hints in scripture of how to manage in that environment. and they are usually misinterpreted to make rules for today.
Lydia,
It sounds like you’re backtracking from your claim that “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a command for masters to free their slaves.
I hope not. My thinking is along the lines of getting there and how that takes place in the grand narrative. Going forward…going backwards, etc.
That is one reason it is so important for professed followers of Chirst to never allow group think to influence them enmasse like we saw more recently with German Christians in the late 30’s.
I am not one who believes God is controlling every molecule so that influences how I approach this. I think we are responsible for our decisions and our behavior.