Theology Thursday - Slavery and the Bible - Part 2 (ca. 1850)
Image
Today, we conclude this article from the September 1850 issue of DeBow’s Review. The anonymous author presents a “Scriptural defense” of slavery from the Bible.1
After the Israelites had been a long time in Egypt, they became servants to the Egyptians. At this time, God sent Moses, as a messenger, to bring them out of Egypt. Through Moses, God gave them laws by which they were to be governed. No law which came directly from him (the fountain of morality), can be considered morally wrong; it might be imperfect, in not providing for circumstances not then existing—but, so far as it does provide, the provisions are correct. Nothing which God ordained can be a crime, and nothing for which he gave express permission can be considered wrong.
In Leviticus xxv, we are told, that the Lord spake to Moses, saying:
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them—after various provisions of the law, the 39th verse reads as follows, in regard to servitude: If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, then shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, but as an hired servant, &c.
—clearly showing that there was a distinction between bond-servant and hired-servant. After providing for the case of a Hebrew servant, verses 44, 45, and 46, of the same law, read as follows:
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmenand bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.
In Exodus xxi, 20, 21, we find this law:
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
The 26th and 27th verses of the same chapter provide, that if the servant have lost an eye or a tooth, by a blow from the master, the servant should go free.
The 29th, 30th, 31st, and 32d verses provide, that if an ox was known to be vicious and killed a freeman, the ox and his owner were both put to death; but if he gored a bond-servant, the ox should be killed and the master should pay thirty shekels of silver: showing the distinction between bond and freemen.
The law given to the Israelites, in regard to circumcision, required the master to circumcise his male servant, bought with his money or born in his house; and, of course, it presupposes the right and power to enforce the circumcision.
Thus, we see that at a time when the Israelites had no slaves, but were themselves, in a manner, fugitive slaves, and when they had no use for slaves, being wanderers in a wilderness, and fed by God’s own hand, he provided laws for bringing in, buying, inheriting and governing, slaves, in the land unto which they were to be brought at the end of forty years. He made laws recognizing the right of property, in man and in his descendents, forever—the right to trade in that property, without any limit, except that the Israelites could not buy each other; and the right to punish the slave, with no limitation, except that if the slave should die under his master’s hand, the master should be punished—and if maimed, in certain ways, he had a right to freedom.
These laws are worse, for the slave, than the laws of any southern State. They were provided, by God himself, for his chosen people. To any man, who admits that the Bible is given by inspiration from God, they prove that, in buying, selling, holding and using slaves, there is no moral guilt. Like all the institutions of the Deity, the holding of slaves may become criminal, by abuse of the slave; but the relation, in itself, is good and moral.
In the New Testament I find frequent mention of master and servant, and of their duties. Paul and Timothy, in writing to the Colossians, in the third chapter and twenty-second to twenty-fifth verses, exhort servants to obey their masters in all things, and not with eye-service; and in the fourth chapter and first verse, they exhort masters to give their servants what is just and equal.
Paul, in writing to Timothy, tells him to teach the same doctrine; and says, if any man teach otherwise, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words: see 1 Timothy vi, 1–6. Peter, also (1 Peter ii, 18–24), exhorts servants to be obedient to their masters, not only to the good and gentle, but to the froward.
Now, we all know, that the condition of the servant of the Roman empire, was much less free than that of the southern negro. His master had a more unlimited control over him; yet, the apostles say to servants, to submit to their masters—not only to the good and gentle, but to the froward; and to masters to give to their servants what is just and equal. Now, had they considered the relation of master and slave, one criminal or immoral, in itself, they must either have omitted to speak of it at all, or have condemned the relation altogether.
Paul wrote an epistle to Philemon, a Christian, a disciple of his, and a slaveholder. He sent it to him by Onesimus, also a convert, a slave of Philemon, who was a fugitive. In it, he prays Philemon to charge the fault of Onesimus to him, saying he would repay it, unless Philemon forgave it for his sake.
Now, had the holding of slaves been a crime, Paul’s duty to Philemon would have required him to instruct Philemon, that he had no rights over Onesimus, but that the attempt to hold him in servitude was criminal; and his duty to Onesimus would have been, in such case, to send him to some foreign free country, whereby he might have escaped from oppression. But Paul sent him back. Our northern friends think that they manage these matters better than Paul did.
We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be wrong.
What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will.
Notes
1 This article is in the public domain, and was taken from Paul Finkelman, Defending Slavery: Proslavery Thought in the Old South – A Brief History with Documents (New York, NY: St. Martins, 2003), 109-114.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 24 views
Is polygamy a good idea? No. The examples cited above demonstrate that it’s fraught with problems. (Though by this standard, some might conclude that marriage itself is not a good idea. There are plenty of examples of marriage problems in the Bible as well. Just saying.)
Is slavery a good idea? No again. But all of this is avoiding the question, “Does God prohibit polygamy? Does God consider it sin?” The reason I brought polygamy into the discussion is because of the similarities to J. R . Noel’s question about slavery. JR wants us to agree with him that slavery is Not prohibited by God. It is regulated, not prohibited. Actually, I agree with him on this. But the same is true of polygamy. JR doesn’t want to acknowledge the parallels, but they are apparent to me. We all agree that polygamy is not the ideal, could hardly be considered good, and should be avoided for many, many reasons. So too with slavery. But to be honest with Scripture, if you insist on divine permission for slavery under certain ideal conditions, I believe consistency demands the same fo polygamy. For the record, I am opposed to both, and am convinced that NT teaching about marriage eliminates polygamy for a Christian, and likewise with slavery. You can’t fully implement all that the NT requires of brothers in Christ if you own a Christian slave. From that starting point, the whole institution of slavery unravels. But its one thing to say that God prohibits it, and another to say that mature Christian development renders it impossible.
G. N. Barkman
Thank you for your thoughts, I really do appreciate it.
[G. N. Barkman]…am convinced that NT teaching about marriage eliminates polygamy for a Christian, and likewise with slavery. You can’t fully implement all that the NT requires of brothers in Christ if you own a Christian slave. From that starting point, the whole institution of slavery unravels.
I agree with the your polygamy comment, but I’m not sure about the NT and slavery. Is there anything in the NT regarding guidelines for polygamous marriages? There certainly is for masters and slaves. I’m also not convinced that a Christian “can’t fully implement all the NT requires of brothers in Christ” in a master-slave relationship. It seems to me that is what God calls masters to do in Ephesians and Colossians, doesn’t he?
Once again I feel it is necessary to put the word “slavery” into perspective due to American baggage. In a word, I am referring to one human “owning” another. What that looks like is where significant variety can occur. I am only arguing that there is nothing sinful about that “ownership” and that it can be done in a manner that honors God’s commands. Polygamy cannot.
A thought occurred to me recently regarding the concept of ownership. I realize there are differences in what I am about to say, but it may help to provide some perspective on the word “own.” At what point is a child no longer “owned” by his parents? As a parent myself, I can tell you that the relationship I have over my children is virtually identical to that of one human owning another. It is easy to accept this when they are babies, toddlers, elementary, and even middle school aged. But at what point does that lordship over my children become nothing more than ownership? 16? 18? 21? When they get married? When they move out of the house? What if they run away at 15?
[G. N. Barkman]But its one thing to say that God prohibits it, and another to say that mature Christian development renders it impossible.
Point taken. I’m not sure it renders it impossible; we don’t know what the world will look like in 1,000 years and how God may sovereignly direct societies. It is not impossible that he could ordain governments and move within leaders to render human ownership more socially acceptable. Speculation, of course, but I just don’t think it can be said that such Christian development renders it impossible. For now, I am not condoning human ownership or looking for some way to justify what happened in early America. Hardly. My point is only to consider what the Bible says and how we can better communicate what it says to people who falsely claim that what happened in America’s past was godly. American slavery did not at all model God’s commands in Galatians and Colossians.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
The Golden Rule alone renders slavery impossible, if fully obeyed. Can anyone say that they would want another person to own them as a slave? If not, then do not own slaves yourself. That’s pretty straightforward and simple.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Can anyone say that they would want another person to own them as a slave?
Americanism prohibits us from desiring to be owned. But is it possible for a master, who rightly treats his “slaves,” to actually be affording those owned by him a better life than if he were free? If a master followed the commands God gave him in Galatians and Colossians, and if the slaves were Christians, especially, where the master could show brotherly kindness due a Christian brother, I can think of scenarios where the slave may actually be thankful for such an arrangement.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
….with various forms of dementia. It is a common thing for them to turn over management of their affairs to a relative or friend so they don’t end up suffering the consequences of forgetfulness. You also have various forms of apprenticeship which require service after training or financial recompense, as well as (again) the service requirements for those on ROTC scholarships and attending military academies. Go back a couple of centuries, and it was common for a man to indenture himself for the term of Biblical slavery so he could get passage across the Atlantic and/or training in a trade.
All of these fit the Biblical model of slavery far closer than does our “peculiar institution.” It’s also worth noting that none less than the autobiography of Booker T. Washington notes that many older slaves had a talk with their former masters in 1865 so that they would not be left to starve—this was, despite the passing of the 13th Amendment, really very similar to the Torah procedure of the awl and the earring.
Plus, those of us with mortgages, student loans, and the like need to remember that the word used in Proverbs 22:7 to describe the borrower’s relationship to the lender—and yes, the word used is ‘avad, Hebrew for “servant” or “slave”.
We don’t just have slavery today, but in a manner of speaking, we love our slavery. We just don’t recognize it as such, and think that if a person isn’t being whipped by an overseer or driver, or raped by the master or his sons, that it somehow doesn’t count.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
JNoel,
Perhaps the slavery you are speaking of is better covered by Socialism and Communism. But I do not believe it is biblical.
A number of Scriptures that contradict slavery were given in part one of this series. But, of course, you disagree. I continue to believe involuntary servitude is unbiblical.
David R. Brumbelow
David, when you call it “involuntary servitude”, you ignore the fact that in Bible times, bond-servitude could be voluntary. The awl in the ear examples is one, and selling one’s self into slavery to pay off debts is another example. I would grant that it would generally be a last resort, but the simple fact of the matter is that bond-servitude was, Biblically speaking, not uniformly involuntary.
Let’s be careful that we don’t confuse the circumstances extant in the “peculiar institution” with those of Scripture. If we do so, we are going to (see my comment from 10:55 am today) fail not only to understand our ancestors in the faith, but also the prophets (esp. Obadiah), the apostles, those enslaved in the U.S. and elsewhere in recent times, and most significantly, ourselves.
No argument that the word is poison today and we ought to avoid it, but let’s not ignore what Scripture actually says about the matter.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Slave - a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
David R. Brumbelow
[David R. Brumbelow]Slave - a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
I like that definition. Where is the sin in it? “Legal property of another?” “Forced to obey?”
I argue that neither, in themselves, are sin.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[David R. Brumbelow]Slave - a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
David R. Brumbelow
That’s a nice translation of the English word “slave” as it is currently used. Now, the $64000 question is whether this matches the usage of the Hebrew term “avad” or the Greek term “Doulos.” If we’re going to debate what the Scriptures say about the matter, this is key.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Go back a couple of centuries, and it was common for a man to indenture himself for the term of Biblical slavery so he could get passage across the Atlantic and/or training in a trade.
…..one of my great-grandfathers indentured himself to a farmer in Illinois for two years to pay off his passage from Norway. This was circa 1885.
Before you agree or disagree with the author’s assertions, you need to answer four questions:
- What is the nature of slavery under the Mosaic Covenant?
- What was the nature of slavery in the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament?
- What was the nature of slavery in America in the 19th century?
- Then, having answered the above, you have to determine whether it’s legitimate to conflate 19th century American slavery to the Hebrew and Greco-Roman versions, and argue “slavery is allowed?”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Before you agree or disagree with the author’s assertions, you need to answer four questions:
- What is the nature of slavery under the Mosaic Covenant?
- What was the nature of slavery in the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament?
- What was the nature of slavery in America in the 19th century?
- Then, having answered the above, you have to determine whether it’s legitimate to conflate 19th century American slavery to the Hebrew and Greco-Roman versions, and argue “slavery is allowed?”
I agree. In your first three points, the word “slavery” itself has different meanings.
Is it safe to say we can reduce the varieties of applications to what David R. Brumbelow posted, that of “legal property…forced to obey?” Whether the circumstances involve the consequences of war victories or voluntary (or involuntary, perhaps) indentured servitude, isn’t the fundamental argument still the question of property and obedience?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
JNoel asked:
… isn’t the fundamental argument still the question of property and obedience?
I think the natures of these three different institutions are very different, and it makes a difference. There is a big distinction between, for example, the status of a slave in the Hebrew and Greco-Roman contexts, and 19th century America. The author of this piece was arguing for slavery from the Hebrew Bible, from the NT, and then extrapolating out and claiming 19th century American slavery is therefore legitimate. These are different institutions, and slaves are viewed very differently in all three. There is enough difference between them (and their respective social contexts) that I feel it is very simplistic to make the kind of leaps the author of this piece made.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]There is enough difference between them (and their respective social contexts) that I feel it is very simplistic to make the kind of leaps the author of this piece made.
I completely agree. So perhaps my repeated queries into this subject would be better done in an entirely separate thread, a discussion on nothing more than the question of “property” and “forced obedience,” to state it perhaps too simply. Or perhaps not too simply at all. After all, it is my opinion that we Americans struggle with this conversation because of our ugly past. Yet I believe it is a valuable conversation because it can help us understand not only the differences in American slavery and what is shown in the Bible, but also that there really isn’t anything sinful about not having one’s own complete freedom from being ruled (owned?) by another human to be subject to him as his rightful property.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Discussion