![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/08\/SlaveStatue.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIn this blog, I\u2019ve responded to many Christian arguments . . . Christians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He added\u00a0in the combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0I\u2019m always one to oblige people\u2019s wishes, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also been said,\u00a0\u201cbe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don\u2019t see that at the end, rest assured that he either hasn\u2019t replied, or didn\u2019t inform me that he did. To find these posts, word-search \u201cSeidensticker\u201d on my\u00a0atheist page<\/a>\u00a0or in my sidebar search (near the top).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n In what follows I will be referring to many resources (by number) listed at the end in the Bibliography. I won\u2019t bother to indent citations or put them in quotation marks. Everything will be quotes from other materials, except for my own comments here and there, which will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>color. All bolding or italics or capitalizing, and abbreviations (and in some cases, different colors) are in the originals (or in secondary sources that cite the original). See the companion-post, \u201cSlavery in the Old Testament\u201d<\/a> for preliminaries and necessary background information for the present post. I won\u2019t be reiterating here<\/em> what is already found there<\/em>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I. Definitions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [See<\/span> source #1<\/a> in the Bibliography for an extremely extensive description of Roman \/ New Testament period slavery: far too detailed and comprehensive to even representatively site here]<\/span><\/p>\n The slaveholders [of the New World period] severely misrepresented Paul. First, Paul was addressing nonracial Roman household slavery, a situation\u00a0quite different from<\/b>\u00a0the slavery practiced in the Americas. Household slaves had greater opportunities for freedom, status and economic mobility than did the vast majority of free peasants in Paul\u2019s day;\u00a0one wonders whether the same term should apply to both U.S. slavery and Roman household slavery<\/b>. (7; 37)<\/p>\n Any socio-economic class that:<\/p>\n 1. people would voluntarily join to achieve greater social status than they could being free; can hardly be called \u2018slavery\u2019 in any New World sense! [It looks so much more like the rigor, discipline, and submission to superiors that shows up in modern military enrollments, in which people submit to military life for a fixed time, in exchange for training, post-service educational payments, medical care, and the like AFTER their term of military service.]<\/p>\n Accordingly, I have to conclude that the\u00a0NT-period \u201cslavery\u201d in the Roman Empire is not similar enough to New World slavery for this objection to have its customary force<\/b>. The gap between NT \u2018servanthood\u2019 and New World \u2018slavery\u2019 is simply too great for us to identify them with each other. (1)<\/p>\n The Greek word (doulos<\/em>) can be translated \u201cslave,\u201d or sometimes \u201cservant\u201d or \u201cbondservant,\u201d and often referred to people who had a surprising level of legal and social status in the first-century Greco-Roman world. Most were not \u201cslaves\u201d from their birth, or for their whole life, or because of their race\u2014for instance, the Roman jurist Gaius (second century) claimed that most slaves were prisoners of war who actually would have been slaughtered if not made slaves. (6)<\/p>\n II. Summaries and Overviews<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Given the complex situation, we would NOT expect blanket commands to \u2018free the slaves\u2019, if for no other reason than that infanticide-rescued infant slaves and aged\/infirm\/sick slaves would become critically destitute. [We might expect a general encouragement away from a slave system, though.]<\/p>\n We\u00a0do<\/i>\u00a0find statements that\u00a0\u2018move\u2019\u00a0<\/i>the church\u00a0away from<\/i>\u00a0general slave-system orientation:<\/p>\n 1) Paul explicitly denounces slave-trading, which would have restricted the supply of slaves to Christian households [1 Tim 1.9-10]<\/p>\n 2) Paul tells free people to NOT become slaves [1 Cor 7.23]<\/p>\n 3) Paul tells slaves to become free, if they can [1 Cor 7.21]<\/p>\n 4) Paul encourages Philemon to \u2018free\u2019 Onesimus in that epistle [verse 21]<\/p>\n But the historical situation was too complex to issue such a blanket \u2018free them all\u2019 statement:<\/p>\n Had Paul somehow been able to get the Empire to free the \u2018slaves\u2019, the economic and social chaos would have been unimaginable. The sheer size of the slave population was immense. . . . From a practical standpoint alone, it would have been impossible to have issued some unilateral emancipation command to the Christian community. (1)<\/p>\n The NT data we have looked at certainly doesn\u2019t \u201csanction\u201d it, but rather strongly encourages the church to move away from it, and explicitly condemns those elements of it that were clearly wrong (e.g., slavetrading, deprivation, malice, anti-community social views of it)\u2013the very elements in New World slavery that are problematic. We have seen already how a blanket emancipation would have been inappropriate (given the type of slave-system it was), and as an institution it was too ambiguous and too flexible to deserve a judgement of \u2018holy\u2019 (sanctioned) or \u2018evil\u2019 (condemned). (1)<\/p>\n Summary and conclusions:<\/b><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Now, what emerges from this rather detailed study, is that most of the passages in the NT relating to slavery were not even speaking about what we could consider \u2018slavery\u2019 today (i.e., New World slavery). Given what \u2018slavery\u2019 was like in Paul\u2019s day, we should not be morally \u2018surprised\u2019 at the absence of a blanket manumission statement by him, or at the absence of a major Empire-wide anti-slavery campaign on the part of the emerging church. The data that we DO have in the NT lays clear groundwork for refuting New World Slavery (almost all of which was based on slave-trading and piracy\u2013explicitly condemned by Paul and fought by the early church). By the time slavery loses its ethically ambiguous character as an institution (i.e., in the slave trade of the New World period), it cannot legitimately \u2018use Paul\u2019 to defend itself, for it had mutated into something quite unlike either Hebrew \u201cslavery\u201d in the OT, or \u201chousehold slavery\u201d in the NT.<\/p>\n So, it is incorrect to say that the bible \u201ccondones slavery\u201d (in the modern connotation of that phrase). (1)<\/p>\n Christians could not change the legal system. A slave rebellion would have led to the execution of the rebels. There were also legal restrictions concerning the number of slaves who could be freed and freeing them early (before the age of 30) could bar them from becoming Roman citizens (Lex Fufia Caninia<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Lex Aelia Sentia<\/em>).<\/p>\n Commanding Christians to free their slaves would not therefore have been legal, nor would it have worked as, by state law, some of those slaves would still not have been free. But Christians were commanded to love others as Christ loved us. That meant that people could no longer be treated as slaves, but Christians would then become the servants of all, as Christ was (Philippians 2:7<\/a>). (2)<\/p>\n There were slaves during New Testament times. The church issued no edict sweeping away this custom of the old Judaism, but the gospel of Christ with its warm, penetrating love-message mitigated the harshness of ancient times and melted cruelty into kindness. The equality, justice and love of Christ\u2019s teachings changed the whole attitude of man to man and master to servant. This spirit of brotherhood quickened the conscience of the age, leaped the walls of Judaism, and penetrated the remotest regions. . . .<\/p>\n Christ was a reformer, but not an anarchist. His gospel was dynamic but not dynamitic. It was leaven, electric with power, but permeated with love. Christ\u2019s life and teaching were against Judaistic slavery, Roman slavery and any form of human slavery. The love of His gospel and the light of His life were destined, in time, to make human emancipation earth-wide and human brotherhood as universal as His own benign presence. (3)<\/p>\n Some critics claim, \u201cJesus never said anything about the wrongness of slavery.\u201d Not so. He explicitly\u00a0opposed\u00a0<\/i>every form of oppression in His mission \u201cto proclaim release to the captives \u2026 to set free those who are oppressed\u201d (Luke 4:18 NASB; cp. Isaiah 61:1). While Jesus did not press for some economic reform plan in Israel, He did address attitudes such as greed, materialism, contentment, and generosity.<\/p>\n New Testament writers addressed underlying attitudes regarding slavery: Christian masters called Christian slaves \u201cbrothers\u201d or \u201csisters.\u201d The New Testament commanded masters to show compassion, justice, and patience. Their position as master meant responsibility and service, not oppression and privilege. Thus, the worm was already in the wood for altering social structures.<\/p>\n New Testament writers, like Jesus their Master, opposed the dehumanization and oppression of others. In fact, Paul gave household rules in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 not only for Christian slaves but for Christian\u00a0masters<\/i>\u00a0as well. Slaves are ultimately responsible to God, their heavenly Master. But\u00a0masters<\/i>\u00a0are to \u201ctreat your slaves in the same way\u201d \u2014 namely, as persons governed by a heavenly Master (Ephesians 6:9). Commentator P.T. O\u2019Brien points out that \u201cPaul\u2019s cryptic exhortation is outrageous\u201d for his day.<\/p>\n Given the spiritual equality of slave and free, slaves even took on leadership positions in churches. Paul\u2019s ministry illustrates how in Christ there is neither slave nor free, when he greeted people by name in his epistles. Some of these people had commonly used slave and freedman names. For example, in Romans 16:7,9, he refers to slaves such as Andronicus and Urbanus (common slave names) as \u201ckinsman,\u201d \u201cfellow prisoner,\u201d and \u201cfellow worker\u201d (NASB). The New Testament\u2019s approach to slavery is contrary to aristocrats and philosophers such as Aristotle, who held that certain humans were slaves by nature (Politics\u00a0<\/i>I.13).<\/p>\n Paul reminded Christian masters that they, with their slaves, were fellow-slaves of the same impartial Master. Thus, they were not to mistreat them but rather deal with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul called on human masters to grant \u201cjustice and fairness\u201d to their slaves (Colossians 4:1, NASB). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons (Colossians 3:22\u201325) who, like their Christian masters, are \u201cbrothers\u201d and part of Christ\u2019s body (1 Timothy 6:2).3 Christians \u2014 slave and master alike \u2014 belong to Christ (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). Spiritual status is more fundamental and freeing than\u00a0social<\/i>\u00a0status. (4)<\/p>\n [T]he principles set forth by Jesus and His apostles, if followed, would result in the abolition of all types of abusive relationships. Slavery would have been nonexistent if everyone from the first century forward had adhered to Jesus\u2019 admonition in Matthew 7:12: \u201cTherefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them.\u201d Any discussion of slavery would be moot if the world had heeded the words of Peter: \u201cFinally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another, love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous\u201d (1 Peter 3:8). . . .<\/p>\n The skeptic\u2019s criticism that the New Testament does not speak against the abolition of slavery is misguided for any number of reasons. First, an attempt to generalize and condemn all types of slavery fails to take into account prison, personal debt, indentured servanthood, and a host of other morally permissible situations. Bankruptcy laws, prison terms, community service hours, and garnished wages are morally acceptable modern equivalents to certain types of slavery that were prevalent during the time of the biblical writers. Second, Jesus and the New Testament writers always condemned the mistreatment of\u00a0any<\/strong>\u00a0human being, instructing their followers to be kind, loving, and compassionate, whether they were slaves or masters of slaves. (5)<\/p>\n III. Verse-by-Verse Analysis<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 5:25-26<\/strong> Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Many of the types of servanthood or slavery in the New Testament are identical to the morally permissible types discussed earlier in this article. For instance, much first-century slavery discussed in the Bible centered on the fact that a person had accrued massive debt, and thus had become a slave or servant due to this debt. . . .\u00a0From Christ\u2019s comments, it can be ascertained that the person in this text who does not make the effort to agree with his adversary could risk being thrown into prison until that person \u201cpaid the last penny.\u201d This situation involved a revoking of individual freedoms due to the fact that the individual owed an unpaid debt\u2014a debt that originally was owed to the adversary, or one that resulted from a fine imposed by a judge.<\/p>\n In Matthew 18:21-35, Jesus told a story about a servant who owed his master ten thousand talents. A talent was a huge sum of money that would be the modern equivalent of many thousands of dollars. It could easily have been the case that this servant had become a servant due to this enormous debt, or was being kept a servant because of the debt. Debt slavery was still a very real form of restitution in New Testament times. Such a condition absolutely cannot be used to argue that God is an unjust God for letting such take place. (5)<\/p>\n Galatians 3:28\u00a0<\/strong>There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Biblical emphasis on new creation in Christ (via identification with His death) would argue for removal of many ethnic, social, or cultural \u2018barriers\u2019 between people. (1)<\/p>\n This was a revolutionary idea, given that Roman intellectuals, while lamenting some aspects of slavery, generally held slaves to be of lesser worth than free men. One example of this is the philosopher Seneca who, although he discouraged merciless corporal punishment, compared slaves to valuable property like jewels one must constantly worry about.\u00a0According to Joshel, \u201cSeneca sees slaves as inferiors who can never rise above the level of humble friends\u201d (Slavery in the Roman World<\/em>, 127). In contrast, slaves in the early Church were not stigmatized. (8)<\/p>\n Ephesians 6:5-9<\/strong>\u00a0Slaves<\/i>, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. 9 And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The biblical motif of Christ as Lord over all elements of created existent would argue that all relationships would be transformed somehow by His Lordship. This is definitely the case, because Paul centers\u00a0each<\/i>\u00a0aspect of the slave-owner relationship around\u00a0their individual accountability<\/i>\u00a0to the Lord. (1)<\/p>\n Colossians 3:11<\/strong>\u00a0Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The unity in Christ obliterated social\/ethic\/gender barriers. (1)<\/p>\n Colossians 4:1<\/strong>\u00a0Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Biblical emphasis on kindness toward others, respect, and goodness would preclude abuse of slaves by masters, as well as respectful behavior toward owners. This shows up in the \u2018household codes\u2019 of Paul, in which the role enactments are required to be characterized by goodness and high-ethics. (1)<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 1:8-11\u00a0<\/strong>Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,\u00a0[9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,\u00a0[10] immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers<\/em><\/strong>, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,\u00a0[11] in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cKidnapers\u201d (\u201cmenstealers\u201d in KJV; Strong\u2019s word #405) is the Greek word andrapodistais. <\/em>According to Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the New Testament<\/em>), it refers to \u201cslave traders.\u201d W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/em>) concurs: \u201ca slave-dealer, kidnapper, from andrapodon<\/em>, a slave captured in war . . . \u201cA. T. Robertson (Word Pictures of the New Testament<\/em>,<\/span> commentary on 1 Tim 1:10<\/a>) agrees also:<\/span><\/p>\n Men-stealers<\/b>\u00a0(andrapodistai<\/b><\/span>). Old word from\u00a0andrapodizw<\/b><\/span>\u00a0(from\u00a0anhr<\/b><\/span>, man,\u00a0pou<\/b><\/span>, foot, to catch by the foot), to enslave. So enslavers, whether kidnappers (men-stealers) of free men or stealers of the slaves of other men. So slave-dealers. By the use of this word Paul deals a blow at the slave-trade (cf. Philemon).\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n [I]n keeping with the Old Testament injunction that anyone kidnapping and selling a person involves himself in immoral conduct, Paul certainly distinguished between certain types of slavery practices that were inherently wrong, and others that were not intrinsically sinful. (5)<\/p>\n Philemon 15-17\u00a0<\/strong>Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever,\u00a0[16] no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.\u00a0[17] So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [O]ne final consideration has helped me think about this over the last few years, and deepened my conviction that the Bible as a whole is utterly opposed to any form of slavery: Philemon.<\/p>\n It is surprising that\u00a0Philemon is not brought into this discussion<\/a>\u00a0more consistently, since it was Paul\u2019s letter to a slaver owner (Philemon) about his runaway slave (Onesimus). In fact, the whole occasion for Paul\u2019s writing is that Onesimus, since running away from Philemon, has become a Christian. . . .<\/p>\n In other words, Paul dissolves the slave\/master relationship, and erects in its place a brother\/brother relationship, in which the former slave is treated with all the dignity with which the apostle himself would be treated. Thus, even before the actual institution of slavery is abolished, the work of the gospel abolishes the assumptions and prejudices that make slavery possible.<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s epistle to Philemon may not amount to a full abolitionist manifesto\u2014after all, like the other passages above, it\u2019s operating in a particular context and doesn\u2019t speak at the societal level. Nonetheless, I think it shows how the logic of the gospel is utterly opposed to slavery.\u00a0(6)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n IV. Sources<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 1)\u00a0Does God Condone Slavery in the Bible?\u00a0[NT]<\/a>\u00a0(Glenn Miller,\u00a0Christian Thinktank<\/em>, 12-30-99). ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> Piergiuliano Chesi (8-2-14). This and three other statues of chained slaves, placed at the base of the\u00a0Monument of the Four Moors\u00a0at\u00a0Livorno,\u00a0Italy, might have been made with actual slaves as models, whose names and circumstances remain unknown.<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution 3.0 Unported<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17:\u00a0\u201cIn this blog, I\u2019ve responded to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":22899,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,31,230],"tags":[1738,1043,745,258,335,6219,4126,6216,459,1367,5552,6213,6225,6228,3509,751],"class_list":["post-22896","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-bible-and-tradition","category-inquisition-crusades-scandals","tag-anti-christian-bigotry","tag-anti-theism","tag-anti-theists","tag-atheism","tag-atheists","tag-bible-slavery","tag-bob-seidensticker","tag-christianity-slavery","tag-christology","tag-critiques-of-christianity","tag-cross-examined","tag-god-slavery","tag-new-testament-slavery","tag-serfs","tag-servants","tag-slavery"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n2. allowed a servant legal rights against their \u2018owner\u2019;
\n3. gave the servant the ability to force a change of owner by seeking asylum;
\n4. created a realistic expectation of freedom WITH ROMAN CITIZENSHIP around the age of 30 years of age;
\n5. provided much greater material comforts, security, and earning potential than free status
\n6. provided access to educational training often unaffordable by the free poor<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n
\n2)\u00a0Does the Bible Support Slavery?<\/a>\u00a0(Peter J. Williams,\u00a0BeThinking<\/em>).
\n3)\u00a0International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>\u00a0(James Orr, gen. ed., 1915) (\u201cSlave; Slavery\u201d, <\/a>by\u00a0William Edward Raffety<\/a>).
\n4) \u201cWhy Is the New Testament Silent on Slavery \u2014 or Is It?\u201d<\/a> (Paul Copan, Enrichment Journal<\/em>).
\n5)\u00a0The Bible and Slavery<\/a>\u00a0(Kyle, Butt,\u00a0Apologetics Press<\/em>).
\n6)\u00a0\u201cWhy It\u2019s Wrong to Say the Bible Is Pro-Slavery\u201d<\/a> (Gavin Ortlund, The Gospel Coalition<\/em>).
\n7) Defending Black Faith: Answers to Tough Questions about African-American Christianity<\/em><\/a> (Craig S. Kenner & Glenn Usry, IVP Academic, 1997).
\n8) \u201cThe Bible Is Not Silent on Slavery\u201d<\/a> (Catholic Answers).<\/p>\n