The Bible and Slavery

[sylvan3]

Is there any place in the Bible where God speaks out against slavery? I know there are a lot of places where slavery is mentioned in the Bible, but I don't know of anywhere where it says that it is bad and should end.

[sisterinchrist]

Is there any place in the Bible where God speaks out against slavery? I know there are a lot of places where slavery is mentioned in the Bible, but I don't know of anywhere where it says that it is bad and should end.

If there is I haven't read it.

Good question.

[anti-hillbilly]

This is the only one I could find with a quick search; but I'm not clear on the circumstances, who it is referring to. I don't know if it includes any slave or just Hebrew slaves.

Deu 23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

[sylvan3]

Thanks for the responses...

How about these:

Exodus 21:20-21 "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."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Not only do these phrases not speak out against slavery, they seem to support it, in addition to addressing issues of being violent with the slave/servant/maid.

[anti-hillbilly]

Thanks for the responses...

How about these:

Exodus 21:20-21 "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."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Not only do these phrases not speak out against slavery, they seem to support it, in addition to addressing issues of being violent with the slave/servant/maid.

Yes that sounds pretty awful. It sounds like you could kill a slave but if the slave died a slow death you wouldn't be in any trouble. When I was trying to find verses on this I came across this link and it sounds like the issue of slavery brought about a lot of biblical criticism durings the 1800s.

[sylvan3]

Thanks for the responses...

How about these:

Exodus 21:20-21 "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."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Not only do these phrases not speak out against slavery, they seem to support it, in addition to addressing issues of being violent with the slave/servant/maid.

Yes that sounds pretty awful. It sounds like you could kill a slave but if the slave died a slow death you wouldn't be in any trouble. When I was trying to find verses on this I came across this link and it sounds like the issue of slavery brought about a lot of biblical criticism durings the 1800s.

Thanks AH...

Here is a quote that I got from that link:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

This verse was allegedly--and quite believably--used by those who supported slavery in this country in the 1800s.

Anyone out there able to defend Ephesians 6:5-9?

[anti-hillbilly]

Anyone out there able to defend Ephesians 6:5-9?

No I can't defend that. I wouldn't be able to do that if I was a slave.

Edited July 9, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[Leonard]

Paul merely gives directions for those who were already slaves after the Roman model. Slavery as the U.S. practiced it WAS based on the Roman model. It was very very different than biblical slavery.

Under the Law of Moses, for the first time in history, slaves had specifically protected legal rights! Not so with Roman or American slavery. In America, the Negro slave could be subjected to any torment and had no legal recourse. It was an extremely immoral institution, and SOME biblical passages were misused by the pro-slavery forces here. They conveniently ignored those Scriptures that talked about the slaves being released after seven years service--AND PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES, AT THE TIME OF RELEASE!

As far as 'dying a slow death' that's not what the Bible was talking about. The words indicating that the slave got up and around for a while, were always interpreted by the Rabbis as indicating a return to full health. Remember too that legal decisions by Israeli courts, based on the passages requiring the slaves be freed if the master caused them to lose a tooth or an eye, eventually required that if the owner caused the slave to lose a fingernail, or pulled them by the hair hard enough to cause three hairs to be plucked out, then that slave also was freed.

So do not confuse U.S. slavery and biblical slavery.

[anti-hillbilly]

Paul merely gives directions for those who were already slaves after the Roman model. Slavery as the U.S. practiced it WAS based on the Roman model. It was very very different than biblical slavery.

Under the Law of Moses, for the first time in history, slaves had specifically protected legal rights! Not so with Roman or American slavery. In America, the Negro slave could be subjected to any torment and had no legal recourse. It was an extremely immoral institution, and SOME biblical passages were misused by the pro-slavery forces here. They conveniently ignored those Scriptures that talked about the slaves being released after seven years service--AND PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES, AT THE TIME OF RELEASE!

As far as 'dying a slow death' that's not what the Bible was talking about. The words indicating that the slave got up and around for a while, were always interpreted by the Rabbis as indicating a return to full health. Remember too that legal decisions by Israeli courts, based on the passages requiring the slaves be freed if the master caused them to lose a tooth or an eye, eventually required that if the owner caused the slave to lose a fingernail, or pulled them by the hair hard enough to cause three hairs to be plucked out, then that slave also was freed.

So do not confuse U.S. slavery and biblical slavery.

Thanks Leonard.

I have a couple questions you might be able to answer; sounds like you're up to the task.

Did the female slaves have any protection in Old testament times or just male slaves? I'm thinking about all those virgin slaves that the Hebrews took into captivity after killing all their fathers, brothers and non virgin mothers.

And, for some reason I'm thinking even the Hebrews were allowed to sell their daughters into slavery if they wanted to? Is that true? I don't know if that is actually in the bible so feel free to correct me on that if it isn't.

[Leonard]

There were specific protections for Hebrew slaves. Their servitude should probably be thought of more as an 'indenturement' rather than slavery. They could never be traded off to a foreigner (whose slavery would not contain the legal protections enjoyed by slaves under Hebrew masters), and women had a set of protections against being 'used and discarded.' A man who bought a woman slave had to keep her as a permanent member of the household. He might give her as a wife or concubine to his son, but even after her seven year term of indenturement was over, she could not just be turned out, but had to be kept as a member of the household.

If in warfare, a man saw a woman he wanted to take as a wife or concubine among the conquered people, she was given to him. He was not allowed to consumate the relationship until she had been given a 'mourning period' for her past life, her family, and her homeland (I think it was a full year.....). Only after maintaining her upkeep for this period, was he allowed to take her as wife or concubine. And once the relationship was consumated, he was NOT allowed to sell her as a slave, but must always treat her as a wife. If he divorced her, he must give her a Writ of Divorcement, entitling her legally to remarry, or to find suitable work and live as a single woman in the community.