Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

The reading rule — the whole Bible, and the Old Testament's forms of slavery

• The question posed (in the host's frame): does the bible condone slavery? The question's framing: some argue that the Bible is an outdated, and even barbaric, book — because, in their minds, it condones slavery. The question instances the Old Testament's slaveholders, and the Apostle Paul, who seems to defend the practice: the question quotes the apostle's instruction (the passage the frame designates — its entries stand in this record's refs on the frame footing) — slaves obeying their masters with respect and fear, serving sincerely as they would serve Christ; and, a few verses later, masters treating their slaves in the same way, not threatening them, both having the same master in heaven, who has no favorites. The question adds the use made of such passages by slave masters in this country, in the years before the war the question names, to justify and condone their actions — and to even argue that slavery was a manifestation of God's will. Does the bible condone slavery? And if it does, isn't that proof that it's an outdated, immoral book? The answer: the Bible does not condone slavery. And so let's talk about that. By the way: I have a new book coming out in the fall, called anchor points. And it's a series of essays on apologetics, from an Apostolic perspective. And it has a chapter on slavery, racism, and the gospel. But to give a full answer to your question: we have to understand that the Bible is a historical book, written in the historical context. But to get the true message of scripture, you have to read from Genesis to revelation. And you also have to see: what are the guiding principles? The unifying principles? So just taking isolated passages: you don't really get the true message of scripture. So, first of all: in the Old Testament, there were various forms of slavery. Now, they weren't based on racism, like in modern times. Most of the time, it was one of two things. Someone had a debt, they couldn't pay. And so they would voluntarily sell themselves — or their children — into slavery. Sometimes to the person that they owed the debt to. And then the other way that slavery took place: is through conquests, where two nations would War. One would win, and take people in as slaves. So, in the Old Testament — before the Old Testament was written — of course, people had fallen into sin. Societies had gone very far away from God. And so the Bible was written, to try to bring people out of those sins. But it was written, within that context. So you find things like: Warfare. Polygamy. Slavery. All the things that were not God's plan, in the Garden of Eden, or from creation. But the human race had fallen into these sins, and dysfunctional practices. So the Old Testament did not immediately give people heaven, in order to give people the Holy Ghost (as the sentence stands). But it was a step-by-step plan, to pull them out of these sinful Lifestyles. So they'd be ready, for the coming of Jesus Christ. And then, in the New Covenant: you'd receive the Holy Spirit. You'd have power, to live a holy life. And then, eventually, the millennial Kingdom would re-establish God's plan. So, if you want to know what God's plan is, for humans: don't look at the sins of the various times. But look at the Garden of Eden. And look at the Millennium. And in neither place, do you find slavery.

Scriptures: Ephesians 6:5; Ephesians 6:9

Servanthood in the Old Testament, and the New Testament's non-revolutionary strategy

• So, how did God deal with slavery, in the Old Testament? Well, first of all: for his people, he transformed it — From Slavery, to servanthood. And, by the way: when you read about slaves, in the Old Testament, there's kind of a Continuum. You would have what we think of as absolute slavery: people as property. But then you would also look at household servants, where — what we might consider, you know, basically almost a family member. But they were attached to the family, as servants. But not in the modern sense, that we think of a slave. And so — or you might say indentured servants, where they serve for a limited time. Okay? Almost like an employee relationship. So what God did is — especially for Israel — he said: first of all, you can't kidnap people. You can't force them into slavery. So it had to be voluntary — selling themselves, for debt. And then, second: in the seventh year, you had to give them Freedom. So basically, you've transformed that relationship — From Slavery, to a seven year indentured servanthood. So it'd be like: I don't have any money. I'm bankrupt. I'm going to sell myself into slavery, for seven years, to dig myself out of debt. So obviously, that's a very different Arrangement. So even in the Old Testament, God is trying to lead people, from a sinful Society, to bring them to a more just society. And — shockingly — the Old Testament has protections for slaves. They have to be treated as people. If someone injures them, or kills them, there are penalties. So, in other words: they're not property. They're people. Now, in the New Testament: we're still dealing with a world culture of brutality, violence, and slavery. In fact, at the time of the New Testament, in the Roman Empire, it's estimated that 30 percent of the population were slaves. So let's suppose a preacher got up, and said: you know, I denounce slavery. Let's overthrow slavery. What would have happened? You know, he's going to be arrested, and executed. So nobody's going to be delivered. And the gospel is not going to be preached. And the church won't be established. So the church did not take the radical route, of violent revolution. In fact — unless you count the Exodus — there's been no successful slave revolt in history ('no successful slavery vote in history', as heard), until in the early 1800s, when Haiti overthrew the French colonialists. So if the church had taken the route of: we're going to incite slaves to revolt — well, the slaves would entrust the church would have been crushed (as the sentence runs). And no good would have come of it. Instead: in the passages that you quoted, the gospel writers said — if you find yourself as a slave, don't rebel against your master, but obey your master, in hopes that your master will come to truth. And if you are a master, don't treat your slave as a slave. Treat your slave as a brother, in Christ. So, in essence, the goal was: be good. Don't attack your Society. Don't foment violent Rebellion ('don't foam it violent Rebellion', as heard). Don't destroy the church. But transform slavery, within the church. So it's no longer slavery. It's an employer-employee relationship. Now, if you have an unsaved Master: you can't do that unilaterally. But by living — you know, being faithful, being honest, working hard, not stealing — then, first of all, you're honoring God. Regardless of that slave — you're not doing it to that Master. You're not doing it for that Master. You're doing it for God. So that gives the slave, inner Liberty, when Society won't give them external Liberty. But in many cases, what actually happened: slave masters were converted, by their slaves ('slaves were con slave masters were converted by their slaves', as the sentence's letters run). And so it became a way of winning people. But also undermining slavery.

Philemon, and the principles that abolish slavery

• And then — if you're a slave owner: in essence, you still have the legal formality. So you're not trying to overthrow Society. But you're no longer supposed to treat your slave, as a slave. And there's a significant little book: Philemon. If you read it carefully — Paul wrote to Philemon. Philemon was a Christian, that Paul helped bring to the Lord ('that Paul helped went to the Lord', as heard). Philemon had a slave, named onesimus, that stole from him, ran away, and somehow met Paul in Rome. Paul converted him. And so Paul is sending onesimus back to Philemon. And writes to Philemon: onesimus has been converted. So don't treat him as a slave. Treat him as a brother. Treat him, as you would treat me. Receive him. If he's done anything wrong: I'll pay for it. I'll Stand good for it. I want you to accept him back, no longer as a slave, but as a brother in Christ. So he's sending him back. And Paul says: I wish he could stay here, to help me. And, Philemon: you actually owe me your life, anyway. So, you know, it would only be fair, if you just gave him to me, to help me. But he says: I'm not going to do anything, without your consent. I'm sending him back to you. And treat him as a brother, not a slave, any longer. But I know you're going to do more than what I ask. Well, it's a pretty strong hint: set him free, and send him back, to work with me. So basically, we have this appeal to a slave master: that if he just followed the exact prescription, he would no longer treat him as a slave. But if he followed the strong hint, he would set him free. And according to church tradition, Philemon did set Onesimus free ('according to church tradition filing the dead set of Nestles free', as the letters garble it). Which makes sense. Because it's just a very short, one chapter letter. It doesn't have a lot of doctrinal significance ('doctoral significance', as heard). Why would it even have been preserved, if onesimus died a slave? No: that letter would have no significance. But if onesimus was set free ('if anessimist was set free', as heard), he would preserve it. And there is also a tradition, that onesimus became a bishop, in the church. And we do know that even people who are slaves often became church leaders — including preachers, pastors, Bishops. So the church didn't treat him, like Society treated him. And so, early tradition says onesimus became a bishop ('on this Mr Kingman Bishop', as the letters garble the close). Which would be a great explanation, of why that little letter was preserved, and became so significant. Even broader: the Old Testament says — Leviticus: love your neighbor, as yourself (the designation in his spoken order). Now, if you really love your neighbor as yourself: you're not going to enslave them, right? You're not going to treat him as a slave. The New Testament — in the Apostle Paul's writings, of First Timothy: among the list of sins, were men Stealers. Or, the NIV says: slave Traders. Kidnappers. People that, you know, forcibly took people, against their will, made them slaves. That was considered a sin. But look at the words of Jesus. When someone asked Jesus, what is the greatest commandment of all — he said: the first commandment is — hear, o Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord ('the Lord I got his one Lord', as the letters run). Love the Lord your God, with all your heart, soul, mind, strength ('blood God' stands in the letters at this point). The second commandment is like it: love your neighbor, as yourself. On these two Commandments hang all the law and the prophets. And then also: Jesus gave what is known as the Golden Rule, in Matthew (the locator as he gives it): basically, do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. So here's the point: if you took the words of Jesus, at face value — you're to love your neighbor, as yourself; you're to treat other people, as you wish to be treated yourself — that would abolish slavery, right there. And Jesus was saying: this is not some strange teaching. This is really a summary, of what the Old Testament teaches.

Scriptures: Philemon (book-only); Leviticus (book-only); 1 Timothy (book-only); Matthew 7:12

The historical verdict — Christianity abolished slavery; the Bible stands against it

• So, when you look at the Bible as the whole — Old Testament, New Testament — it undermines slavery. Not by promoting direct rebellion and violence, against the government. But by teaching to change people's hearts, so that slavery would be seen as the sin that it is — of the evil that it is. And sure enough, in the history of Rome: when Christians became predominant, that's what led to the abolition of slavery ('led to the about abolition of slavery', as heard). So: thousands of years of human history — what really ended ancient slavery, was Christian teaching, as I've just described. And then, later in Europe, when slavery was reintroduced by Western Powers, nominally Christian: but it was the Abolitionist Movement of the 1800s, that led to the end of slavery, in the UK and Great Britain (as he names it). And then later, in the U.S. And then even later, in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, of the new world. And then slavery wasn't abolished in Africa, until the 20th century. And it persisted — wasn't officially abolished in North Africa, until the early 21st century. And it's still practiced, illegally. My point is: slavery was a universal phenomenon. Universal evil. Had nothing to do with Christianity. But in the ancient Roman Empire, and in modern Western Civilization, it was specifically Christianity, that abolished slavery. The Abolitionist Movement in the 1800s was explicitly Christian based ('I didn't close the thought', as his aside stands in the letters, before the point resumes). It was appealing to scripture, appealing to Christian values, that slavery is against that. So, to summarize: no, the Bible does not condone slavery. It gave instructions to people who are living, within such a society. But it enunciated principles, that undercut slavery, from within. And in fact, historical fact, actually led to the abolition of slavery (a bare caption timestamp bleed is struck from this sentence by the recorded fix). So you could say: the Bible, and the Christian faith, is the one religion, theology, philosophy, that actually overthrew the universal sin, of human slavery. So the American slave owners were not being faithful to scripture. They were not following the Golden Rule. They were not following the two greatest Commandments. They were obviously picking different parts of scripture, for their own self-interest. As one writer said: you know, even the devil can quote the Bible, for his purpose. As you saw he did, at the temptation of Jesus. So you can always cherry pick little things, and twist the scripture out of its context, to say what you want to say. But if you're honest, and look at the Bible as a whole — and specifically focus on the teaching of Jesus, and focus on the example the Apostle Paul and Philemon — you'll — you can honestly and easily say: the Bible stands against slavery. Christianity stands against slavery. And of course, we today stand against slavery, and racism. But certainly, that's no reason not to trust the Bible. Because the Bible, theologically and historically, is what caused the end of slavery.

Scripture index: Ephesians 6:5; Ephesians 6:9; Philemon (book-only); Leviticus (book-only); 1 Timothy (book-only); Matthew 7:12.