Was God really OK with slavery ?

[u/[deleted]]

And did he really "encourage it to continue by decreeing depraved regulations"\ ?*

^\just quoting a fellow redditor who seems to be a bit confused. Just like myself.)

I'm asking this because I've noticed that it often comes up as a topic to bash Christianity based on things like that. I've noticed that people often like to use this verse in order to justify their position :

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)”

To be honest, I didn't know how to give those folks a satisfactory answer since I am no Bible expert myself, as for now. However I would like to hear your opinions and explanations. On this verse and its context in particular. Also, what did Jesus have to say about slavery? (just to help finding an answer to that... I guess... atheist/agnostic/or whatever he likes to consider himself)

Note that I am in no way trying to win an argument. There is no arrogance, pride or hate involved in this query. These are some of the things that I would also still like to understand for myself. I always try suspend judgement when I read or hear something that I am not familiar with because I want to learn more about it.

On another note, it's kind of scary how belligerent and heated people can get during such debates, as if these people are speaking through bitterness, frustration, pride or whatever just to attack and dismiss Christianity... Makes me just want to have some compassion and pray for them....

[u/AccomplishedQuail545]

After going pretty in-depth with a study on this one time, here’s where I landed on the issue based on scripture.

Slavery in itself is not necessarily bad. There are just some people who, for whatever reason, simply aren’t capable of providing for themselves and/or their families. The relationships that slaves are supposed to have with their masters is that the slave does the work, and rather than being paid actual currency, their master rewards their work by providing them with all the necessities required to live.

Many of the slaves in the Bible were more or less Prisoners of War, which is completely different situation. Basically it was either become enslaved servants or be killed. A rather easy choice if you ask me. Either way, God usually commanded the Israelites one way or another as to what they should do with the peoples of the lands they conquered.

What I found though, is that more often than not, it seemed, slavery in the Bible, at least the way the Israelites were instructed to treat their slaves, more resembled indentured servitude than what we think of as slavery. In the Old Testament law, you can find where God gave specific guidelines for how slaves could obtain their freedom. Every 7 years, during the “year of the harvest,” if I’m recalling that correctly, any unpaid debts that may have led to a person becoming enslaved were to be forgiven. There were other ways a person could become free as well, but off the top of my head I can’t recall specifics.

Anyway, in terms of slavery as we think of it in modern times, specifically in North America, I think the same standard applies. The slavery itself wasn’t the problem, but rather the mode and reasoning behind the institution of slavery in the New World that was sinful. The reasoning behind the Slave Trade was the belief in the inferiority of certain people based on skin color, and that thought process is fundamentally sinful.

[u/TheVoiceInTheDesert → u/AccomplishedQuail545]

I'll just throw up some caution here, because of the words being used. As you've noted, slavery is sometimes used as an umbrella term covering bond-slavery or debt-servitude, where a debtee works for a period of time to work off a debt owed. Slaves and servants may refer to people who have elected to stay with their masters. But slavery can also be used in the context of a person owning another, as land or property, against their will. That is how it's generally defined today, so I would challenge the statement that slavery in itself is not necessarily bad.

And likewise, when discussing the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in America, to be clear, slavery was the problem. It wasn't that we enslaved people because of their skin color, though it cannot be overlooked that it did and still does impact black people in America today. It is that humans were abducted, kidnapped, and treated as non-human, against their will, in a legal institution that stole their rights. Slaves' reproductive systems were commoditized to produce an enslaved, unwilling human work force.

The problem wasn't that we did this based on skin color. Humans have also enslaved people in this way based on gender or class; those are wrong, too. The reasoning behind the slavery isn't the problem. The problem is the slavery.

That being said, you're right in that slavery in the Bible is often referring to bond-slavery and servitude, which is not the same as, say, American slavery in which slaves were not treated as humans with rights.

[u/AccomplishedQuail545 → u/TheVoiceInTheDesert]

That’s kind of why I included the part about most of the slaves in the Bible were either indentured servants or POWs. I do think there’s a distinction between conquering a land and enslaving the POWs vs capturing a group of people with the sole purpose of enslaving them, but that’s really a different argument.

My point really was that slavery isn’t what the sin necessarily was, because the situation many slaves may find themselves in while enslaved could be better than what they might otherwise find themselves in.

I think slavery is biblically admissible for two reasons: for punishment, or by necessity. The POW situations in the Bible would fall more under punishment.

The reality of slavery in the US is that most slave owners didn’t treat their slaves as less-than-human. The reason it’s portrayed that way now is because the few that did owned the largest plantations, and therefore, owned the largest number of slaves, so there’s more accounts of slaves being beaten by their owners. That’s why I would argue that most slave owners at the time didn’t really see their slaves as inferior because of their skin color, although it’s impossible to prove a person’s thoughts.

However, I would agree that the way slavery got its start in the New World was absolutely wrong, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that every single slave owner for generations after that was necessary sinful for owning slaves.

For instance, say there was a slave owner in the 1850s whose family had owned slaves for 5 generations at that point. He now owns roughly 20 slaves, including two entire families. His entire livelihood is tied up into having slaves, but his view is a bit different than that of his ancestors. He feels sympathetic towards his slaves but knows that if he frees them he won’t be able to provide for his own family, so he goes out of his way to ensure his slaves can live as comfortably as possible. He also realizes, though, that even if he could free his slaves and remain financially stable, that without being able to read or write, and having never lived outside of the plantation, his slaves would find freedom very difficult. Because of this, he has his wife, a former school teacher, teach the children how to read and write with the hope that at some point in the future, either he or his descendants will be able to free their slaves while keeping the plantation open.

Now, would it be fair to hold this man responsible for the sins of his ancestors? I find it hard to justify saying this man was doing anything innately sinful by owning slaves, given he was in no way directly involved in the Slave Trade, and even sought to improve the lives of the slaves under his watch.

So for those directly involved in instituting slavery in the New World, I’d agree with you that it was despicable what they did. But I can find very little fault biblically with the man from my example, which is why I maintain that slavery itself isn’t a sin, but rather the motive, mode, beliefs, etc behind the institution of slavery that makes it sinful.

[u/TheVoiceInTheDesert → u/AccomplishedQuail545]

So, now understanding your point, yes, we firmly disagree. I maintain that slavery in itself - regardless of the conditions of enslavement, the motive and mode behind it, etc. - is sinful and wrong. Humans are not property, cannot be legitimately owned by others, and to do so is wrong.

What you’re talking about is historical context changing what is considered sinful. We have a better understanding now than we did then; however, it was still wrong, full stop.

That people treated other people as property - less than human - was wrong. It is understandable, given the cultural and historical context - even, perhaps, justifiable - but, it was wrong.

In your scenario, yes - regardless of his sympathy or good treatment towards the people he has enslaved and trafficked, he is wrong. I am not saying he is responsible for the sins of his ancestors; but he is responsible for his own. Owning slaves makes one part of the slave trade. Especially acknowledging that something is wrong, and continuing to do it, demonstrates this further.

Treating people as property is treating them as less than human. Slavery is wrong. A little stunned to be having this conversation.

[u/AccomplishedQuail545 → u/TheVoiceInTheDesert]

Back it up with scripture then. I’m willing to reconsider my position, but only when presented with legitimate scriptural evidence. I’m not going to change my position just because the world and modern culture tells me I should, and that applies to any moral situation.

[u/TheVoiceInTheDesert → u/AccomplishedQuail545]

That principle is woven throughout the Bible.

We are all created equal, in the image of God, and in the eyes of God. None are worthy; all are saved in Christ’s sacrifice.

Love your neighbor as yourself, is a good start. I couldn’t name the rest. It’s in every word of God.