One of the most dishonest assertions from skeptics is to refer to the Bible’s references to slavery as approving of oppressive slavery by God. The most important thing to do when considering the words of critics is extreme skepticism of every single word from their mouths since these initially must approach the Bible with prejudice. Bible-believing Christians in the nineteenth century worked to overcome and outlawed chattel slavery in Great Britain and the United States. At the same time, so-called “Christians,” Muslims, pagans, and unbelievers enslaved and traded slaves.
Becoming a Slave in the Bible
Was slavery allowed in the Bible? According to the Old Testament, the Israelites had a number of instructions for servant work and labor laws. No servants could come from being kidnapped and enslaved (Exod 21:16; Deut 24:7). Enslaving others was contrary to the law and worthy of death.
There were only three ways that one could become a slave or an indentured servant. First, one could go into slavery for a crime like thievery (Exod 22:2–3). Second, Israel’s officials placed war criminals into slavery (Deut 20:10–15). No extensive prison system exist among ancient people. Third, some sold themselves as indentured servants because of their poverty and debt (Lev 25:39–40; cf. Matt 18:21–35). Likewise, the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
However, servanthood also had its benefit for those in poverty to receive pay from masters and learn a new trade. In the ancient world, the liability of debt did not fall to loss toward the lender after everything was repossessed. The debt was paid in work. Furthermore, the release of a bondservant often meant benefits of partnership for their masters in the ancient world (Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2003).
The Treatment of Bond-Servants
Israelites were to treat other Israelites as hired servants or indentured servants and not really “slaves.” Moses recorded, “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a bond-servant: he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee” (Lev 25:39–40). Those selling the labor of themselves were not “slaves” but indentured servants. Furthermore, a person sold themselves, and in this sense, became representative of debt and property to the master (Exod 21:21).
The “slavery” that God allowed was not like slavery as most people understand. Slaves who ran away were not to be returned to their master. God instructed through Moses, “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him” (Deut 23:15–16).
How could this be slavery? Should they not be considerate of another person’s property and return the slave? Evidently, this was not the case with God’s just form of “slavery.” These “slaves” could run away from an abusive master and no one could force their return.
One of these misused passages of the Bible is the one where Israel could buy and possess servants of the surrounding nations (Lev 25:44–45). This slavery was against the surrounding nations for their crimes. These nations were evil oppressing most, practicing idolatry, and engaging in long lists of immoral behavior.
Biblical “Slaves” and their Rights
Did these “slaves” and servants have rights? These “slaves” did have rights. Could the master beat the slave? If a master beat and injured a slave, then the slave many times received freedom and always justice. Moses commanded, “When a man strikes the eye of his servant, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth” (Exod 21:26–27).
Those who beat their slaves to death were put to death (Exod 21:20). Their masters could not have sexual relationships with their servants unless under marriage, and then that person who married a slave was to recognize that person as a spouse and not as a servant (Lev 19:20). Does that sound like the abuses of slavery that have occurred in the recent centuries?
Readers can better understand these “slaves” as bondservants. They had religious rights to observe what God had commanded. They were to observe the Feasts and they were to rest on the Sabbaths (Exod 20:10; Deut 16:9–17). The Law of Moses commanded, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD” (Lev 19:18).
The Duration of Biblical “Slavery”
Were these “slaves” bound for life? The Scripture written around the U.S. Liberty Bell records the biblical year of Jubilee, the 50th year, when all bondservants were set free (Lev 25:10). Israel emancipated bondservants every fifty years. Moses instructed, “And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan” (Lev 25:10).
Even with this year of Jubilee, Hebrew servants were only bound to serve up to six years before being released and he was not to go without his family or empty handed but the master was to give to that servant liberally (Exod 21:2). Moses revealed,
If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. (Deut 15:12–14)
That is not how masters have treated slaves in recent centuries. In the Old Testament, bondservants who desired to continue working for their lords could continue doing so by having one’s ear pierced (Deut 15:16–17). “Slavery” in the Bible resembles more of an employer and employee relationship rather than chattel slavery.
The Bible and the Condemnation of Enslaving
The Bible is aggressive toward those who enslave others against their will. Those men who kidnap and steal other people selling them into slavery were to be put to death. Moses commanded, “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers, of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst” (Deut 24:7).
If someone paid for a servant who was forced into slavery, then the buyer was also to be put to death. Moses instructed, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death” (Exod 21:16). No one was to oppress anyone for their race or nationality (Lev 19:34; Deut 24:14). Leviticus 25 teaches that an Israelite could sell himself to a foreigner in the land but his family must be allowed to redeem him (25:47–49).
All of these instructions regarding slavery made it hard to possess and maintain actual “slaves,” and prevented abuses and oppression, but this practice offered alternatives for those in debt and justice to those guilty of crimes.
Before the Law of Moses, there remain no records of God’s regulations given to Abraham. However, the Scriptures show that Abraham had servants and was going to turn his inheritance over to one of them if he did not have an heir (Gen 14:14–15; 15:2–3; 24:2). Even during this time when God spoke to Patriarchs, Job wrote about how he, Job, was equal to his servant being made by God (Job 31:13–15).
Jesus and Slavery
What did Jesus reveal about slavery? In the New Testament, Jesus did not condemn anyone possessing a bondservant. Did Jesus approve of abuse, racism and, or enslavement? No. The New Testament condemned abusive and oppressive slavery as against Christian values. In 1 Timothy 1:9–10, the apostle Paul condemned enslaving or “men-stealers.” However, many are confused by the instruction for “slaves,” servants, to obey their “masters” and to work heartily (Col 3:22–24). Furthermore, God warned that the masters of these servants would be judged by God if they did not give to them fairly (Col 4:1). Within the context of the Old Testament instructions and the Greco-Roman world, servants were better to prosper and come to freedom for their master’s sake (Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2003).
The Christians Scriptures encourage servants to seek freedom if they can (1 Cor 7:21–24). The New Testament Scriptures instruct Christian bondservants to serve their masters well as bondservants of Christ, and these are principles easily applied to labor today (Eph 6:5–8). Peter instructed,
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. (1 Pet 2:18–20 ESV)
In the New Testament, “masters” or managers are instructed not to give up their servants, but to treat them good like unto the Lord and recognize who is their master, the Lord in Heaven (Eph 6:9). This would imply in the context of the Old Testament that “slaves” were actually servants of whom some were indentured.
In one of the books of the New Testament, Paul wrote to a Christian whose servant ran away. Paul wrote Philemon about his runaway servant, Onesimus. Paul compelled Onesimus to return to Philemon who was helping Paul in prison. Paul asked Philemon not to receive Onesimus as a servant but as a brother. Paul also asked Philemon to charge that Onesimus’s debt to him and accept Onesimus as himself, a partner, since Philemon was in debt to Paul. Onesimus was most likely indentured to Philemon for debt.
Slavery and the Influence of Christianity
Bound and free are equal in Christ. Paul revealed, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bound nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:27–28). There were still these differences and different roles between people in wealth, service, age, and gender, but societal position was apart from God’s inheritance that all Christians possess equally. Christianity is about conquering opposing authorities through enduring faith and not by physically rising up against hostile governments.
There is a just “slavery” and an unjust slavery, and God allows a just form of “slavery.” His laws are perfect in giving instructions. These laws would have served the world great justice if modern man-made these laws current and enforced them in recent centuries. However, because of the Bible, slavery came to an end. Because of Christian pleas, the early colonies of the United States restricted slave trade in the American Revolution, the first national Congress regulated the slave trade in the Slave Trade Act of 1794, and the legislation of the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves in 1807 until the Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery.
Slavery exists now in illegal trafficking. Furthermore, debts enslave many people to work two or three jobs a week. Criminals are justly forced to labor for very little pay to pay the state as they sold themselves into slavery by their crimes.
Slaves of Jesus Christ
The New Testament teaches that everyone is enslaved to either evil or God. Paul expressed,
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (Rom 6:16–18)
Everyone is either a slave to sin and a slave to righteousness. Those who are enslaved to Christ are free from sin. There is no between. Paul declared, “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life” (Rom 6:22). Paul revealed, “For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God” (1 Cor 7:22–24).
“The truth will set you free,” proclaimed Jesus Christ (John 8:32).
The Breath of God 
You apparently did not follow the logic of my point with respect to Exodus 21:3. It’s not really important to the argument, but I will explain.
Ex 21:3 says that if a free man had a wife, and then sells himself into indentured servitude, his wife does not become a slave, but goes with him when he’s freed.
Ex 21:4 says that if a free man becomes an indentured servant and then has children with his indentured or slave wife, the children do not go free. They belong to the master.
I agree with your interpretation that Ex 21:4 implies that if the wife the master “gave” to the indentured servant was to be set free at a later date than the husband, that the children would probably go free when she does, though it does not explicitly say that. It then logically follows that if she were never to be set free (as a foreign slave would not) that the children would go also free when she does; which is to say “never”. That was the point I was trying to make.
Those points are not important to the argument. Choose whatever verse and translation you like; the fact will still remain that the children of slaves in the Old Testament were born as slaves, just as the Israelites who were born in Egypt were slaves. It is inherent in the meaning of “slave”, both now and then. There is no directive anywhere in the Bible that says otherwise, and it is the way the Bible has always been interpreted.
I notice you did not address that point at all, as is your habit when encountering something that you can’t refute.
You are the only one making this argument. I have read a lot of Christian slavery apologia and I’ve never heard this whopper before. I believe that you just made it up on the spot, rather than admit that I had refuted your argument by showing that not all slaves “deserved it”, as you claim. The vast majority were born to it. I have never heard of a Christian abolitionist arguing that American slavery was against Biblical law because the slaves’ children were not set free.
So again:
To avoid the conclusion that your premise here has been refuted, you would need to have shown that:
1. Children of slaves were to be released; they would not become slaves.
2. All Biblical slaves were criminals.
You’ve failed at your repeated attempts with #1, and you will continue to fail, because you know very well the Bible says no such thing. On point #2, you didn’t prove anything; you just repeated your slanderous assertion that all POWs are war criminals. This is dishonest nonsense, insulting to anyone who served in the military. You should apologize for it.
Exodus 21:4 does say that the children of slaves are slaves. Your denial of reality is bizarre. I will repeat it for your readers who might assume you are telling the truth:
“If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.”
“Children shall belong to the master.” Is your problem with comprehension, or honesty?
I am sorry that I have underestimated your lack of knowledge. By your reasoning, the children would be slaves from birth until the 6th year of their mother’s service since if the woman is Hebrew and could serve only 6 years (Exo. 21:2). What service would her infant children provide? “The wife and her children shall be her master’s” (KJV) does not mean that her children are his slaves anymore than verse 3 implies that the man’s wife before entering into service became the master’s servant too. “If he is married, then his wife shall go out with him” (Exo. 21:3). Was this man’s wife a slave or a perpetual slave too, because his master possessed him as representative of “his money” (21:21)? Certainly not, but she must be according to your reasoning. The children are in her master’s care only in the sense that she is in debt to her master. They are not his slaves.
She will only serve 6 years if she is Hebrew or be redeemed (Exo. 21:2). What debt could her children owe? They owe nothing, and are no more slaves than the man, who became a servant, and brought his wife with him in verse 3.
On top of all of this, this woman and her children could leave with her children any time that she wanted (Deut. 23:15-16). Also, neither man nor woman were slaves, but were to be considered “hired servants” (Lev. 25:39-40, cf. Deut. 15:12-14).
Your accusation about Ex 21:3 “by my reasoning” is bizarre, since I have not mentioned it, and I am not the one claiming that the words mean the exact opposite of what they say.
Again, to avoid the conclusion that your premise here has been refuted, you need to show that:
1. Children of slaves were to be released; they would not become slaves.
2. All Biblical slaves were criminals.
You have done nothing with #2, and you’re failing at your attempts with #1.
As you very well know, slavery in that time and place (and every other time and place) meant that the children of slaves were born slaves. Since the Israelites were in fictional captivity in Egypt for 430 years, it is fair to assume that all of them at the time of Exodus would have been born slaves.
Therefore it is clear that slavery (as the people who wrote the Bible knew it) meant that the children of slaves were born slaves. Numerous Bible verses allude to this obvious fact:
“Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and so that the slave born in your household and the foreigner living among you may be refreshed. -Exodus 23:12 (NIV)
For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. -Genesis 17:12-13 (NIV)
But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if slaves are born in his household, they may eat his food. -Leviticus 22:11 (NIV)
Is Israel a servant, a slave by birth?
Why then has he become plunder? -Jeremiah 2:14 (NIV)
Exodus 21:4 refers to indentured servants, but clearly supports the obvious conclusion that a slave’s children were not born free.
If you want to claim otherwise, please provide evidence.
Read your scriptures in another translation (i.e. Exo. 23:12, Lev. 22:11). I can’t think of one respectable theologian, who relies on the NIV for doctrinal points. Even when translating Greek, we noted with our professors the numerous grammatical errors every other verse in the NIV. The NIV has been replaced anyways by the younger generations with the ESV, which is a more literal word-for-word translation. If you want to make a doctrinal point and you do not know Greek, then you will need the ASV or the like to make a valid point.
I take the following quote as an admission and an unintentional contradiction. You have clearly written whether intentional or not that a passage about indentured servants having children implies that children born to slaves become slaves. “Exodus 21:4 refers to indentured servants, but clearly supports the obvious conclusion that a slave’s children were not born free.”
You do realize that Exodus 21:3 shows that relatives do not become slaves or indentured servants by being a part of the servant’s household?
#2 – Biblical slaves were criminals as proved by the Scriptures in the article above.
Instead of repeating your claim that reading the words of the Bible to mean what they say is “reinterpreting the Bible so that I may reject it”, why not cite the Bible verses that show you are right and I am wrong on your 2 key claims?
1. Children of slaves are released; they do not become slaves. (I already cited Ex 21:4 which says the opposite. See also Exodus 21:7-11)
2. All Biblical slaves were criminals. (Lev 25:44-46, the above Exodus, and many others say the opposite. So does common sense, by the way. Who the heck would have a convicted criminal in their house as a slave?!?)
Since we both know these Bible verses do not exist, would it not be the honest thing to just admit that you were wrong, that Biblical slavery was not moral, not all (if any) Biblical slaves were criminals, and that Biblical law allowed for children to become permanent slaves? Or will you continue to deny any reality that conflicts with your belief?
Exodus 21:4 does not say the children are slaves or perpetual slaves. It does not say that they were enslaved. They are under the care of their Jewish master.
You are grasping for straws and imagining that the text something that it does not whether in Exodus 21 or Leviticus 25.
What is so immoral about Biblical slavery is that it is immoral to own other human beings. This is obvious to most people, so it is surprising to have to say it. Slavery violates the Golden Rule (which does not come from the Bible). If you do not want to be owned, you should not own other humans.
Like most defenses of Biblical slavery, this post is highly dishonest. You claim that the only ways to become a slave are as punishment for a crime or war crime, or to sell yourself as a indentured servant. For starters, the “war criminal” claim is false. POWs and noncombatants became slaves, not just war criminals. (See Deuteronomy 20:10-15)
But the bigger lie is that you leave out the way to become a slave that was by far the most common way for someone living in 1600-1800’s America to have become a slave: birth. The vast majority of American slaves were born into slavery.
Exodus 21:1-4 (NIV)
21 “These are the laws you are to set before them: 2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
The Bible clearly says the children of Israelite slaves were slaves as well. Of course the children of foreign slaves were slaves, too.
Biblical slavery was exactly like Old South slavery: indentured servitude for your own countrymen, and perpetual slavery for foreigners. Old South slavery was in complete compliance with the Biblical rules on keeping slaves. Deuteronomy 24:7 explicitly condemns kidnapping Israelites, not foreigners. Exodus 21:16 (condemning kidnapping) is widely believed by scholars to have referred to Israelite citizens (and does not extend punishment to slave owners as you claim); but even if you reject that common sense interpretation, you are still left with perfectly legal slaves born into slavery.
Like most defenses of Biblical slavery, this post is highly dishonest. You claim that the only ways to become a slave are as punishment for a crime or war crime, or to sell yourself as a indentured servant. For starters, the “war criminal” claim is false. POWs and noncombatants became slaves, hardly just war criminals. (See Deuteronomy 20:10-15)
But the bigger lie is that you leave out the way to become a slave that was by far the most common way for someone living in 1600-1800’s America to have become a slave: birth. The vast majority of American slaves were born slaves.
Exodus 21:1-4 (NIV)
21 “These are the laws you are to set before them: 2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
Clearly foreign the children of foreign slaves were slaves as well.
Biblical slavery was exactly like Old South slavery: indentured servitude for your own countrymen, and perpetual slavery for foreigners. Old South slavery was in complete compliance with the Biblical rules on keeping slaves. Deuteronomy 24:7 explicitly refers to kidnapping an Israelite, not a foreigner. Why did you pretend otherwise? Because you know most readers won’t check. Exodus 21:16 (condemning kidnapping) is also widely believed by scholars to have referred to Israelites, but even if you reject that common sense interpretation, you are still left with perfectly legal slaves born into slavery.
You conveniently interpret the Bible for you to reject it. An honest examination defends and builds cases for both sides before making a decision. “The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17). No matter where you go with your private interpretations, Christians also recognize that Moses’ Law is nullified by Jesus’ death, and the Old Testament is the obsolete covenant, and that a better one was needed. Any flaws that you see, Christians see more more in the Old Covenant (i.e. sacrifices, polygamy, priests, etc.).
American slavery was not the same as Biblical slavery. Slaves were captured by other Africans, pagan and “Muslims”, and shipped and sold by skeptics, so-called “Christians”, and deists to be shipped.
Foreign cities that warred Israel were to offered peace by tribute and service or attacked executing all the men (Deut. 20).
Exodus 21:16 is a general instruction. Throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, strangers (foreigners) are to be respected and had rights in the land. No one was to kidnap them.
Well, you’ve made a response of sorts, but what you’ve failed to do is refute my key point: being born into slavery is in compliance with Biblical law, and is also highly immoral. Obviously, you can’t refute that point, and you won’t admit when you’re wrong, so you have to change the subject.
Your point about Mosaic law being nullified by Jesus’ death is not only at odds with Jesus’ words (Matthew 5:17-20, Luke 16:16-17), but is also irrelevant. The fact remains that slavery existed for 1000’s of years, supported in part by what was claimed to be God’s word. Jesus never spoke against slavery, and so it stood for another 1800 years or so, until morality that did not originate in the Bible took over.
An honest examination requires looking at both sides, not reading the text with the firm knowledge that it can’t possibly be incorrect or immoral, even when it clearly is.
If you are implying that Lev. 25:45-47 is saying a slave and his family are perpetually slaves forever, then you need to read it again. The possession of the bond-servant is inherited by son. That is all. I do not have a problem enslaving criminals unlike you, but you seem to imply human sacrificing cultures should be preserved and they should have the freedom to live generation to generation in such corruption.
Moses’ Law is nullified and not abolished. Those are 2 different Greek words (Eph. 2.14-16).
I am not implying that Lev 25 says a slave and his family are slaves forever, I am pointing out the indisputable fact that it does say exactly that. If the slave is inherited by the master’s son, and the slave’s children are also slaves, then they are passed down, too. Exactly as in Old South slavery, which was modeled on these laws.
I do not “seem to imply” that human sacrificing cultures should live on; I very clearly imply that books which depict gods who command such sacrifices (even if they say “just kidding” as in Gen 22:1-18) are not moral and therefore not the work of an omnibenevolent god.
I understand that you may not have a problem with slavery, as your morality comes from an ancient book which commands killing people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath. I am simply pointing out that most people disagree, and think that it is immoral to own other human beings.
As to your explanation of why you disregard Jesus’ words on the law:
nul·li·fy: make legally null and void; invalidate.
a·bol·ish: formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution).
Those 2 words mean the same thing in this context.
” For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
-Matt 5:18-20 NIV
There is no honest way to interpret that as meaning the laws don’t need to be followed any longer. It is perfectly clear that Jesus meant that law must be followed until the end of the world. In any case, it is a distraction from the immorality of Biblical slavery.
In summary, what was so wrong with Biblical slavery?
1. Ownership of humans violates the ethic of reciprocity (the “Golden rule”) and is therefore immoral, which is obvious to everyone, except those who rationalize and deny it to avoid being shown to be wrong.
2. Even if that were not so, it is inherently unfair to be born a slave; to be punished for something your parents (or great-great-great grandparents) did. This point dismisses any rationalization based on the blaming the slaves for their slavery.
This is so obvious that it is ridiculous to have to explain it.
My main point remains unaddressed, so your rationalization is refuted; there are other ways to become a slave in accordance with Biblical law: you can be born one. This is immoral, therefore Biblical slavery was immoral.
Again, you reinterpret the Bible, so that you may reject it. All of your beliefs about the Bible are inferences upon inferences. Leviticus 25 is clear that the slave criminal was inherited by the child.
As for the difference between abolish and nullify, you need to study the Greek and theology more. Paul was not intentionally contradicting Jesus. Jesus’ fulfilling Moses’ Law made it nullified in condemning His followers (Rom. 8:1). The Law still stands, but as Hebrews teaches that there is a better covenant. Galatians teaches that believers who go to following Moses’ Law, then these fall from grace (Gal. 3-5, cf. 5:4).
You didn’t approve my comment, so you appear to be replying to nothing there.
Yeah, I do not know why your comments are being filtered unless you writing from another machine or using another email.
Reblogged this on Seeing God's Breath.
‘God allows a just form of “slavery”
Bearing this in mind, I would be interested to know if Mr Schifferd would himself ever keep slaves – were it not illegal – assuming that he would do so in a way which is acceptable to God. If so, how many would he be interested in keeping? One or two, or perhaps a few dozen? More maybe?
Do you read articles before you comment? I’m a Christian not a nihilist, so I can’t self-righteously make up my own rules and enslave people. Your answer is in the article.
“The Bible is aggressive toward those who enslave others against their will. Those men who kidnap and steal other people selling them into slavery were to be put to death. Deuteronomy 24:7 says, “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers, of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” In fact, if someone bought a slave who was forced into slavery, then the buyer was also to be put to death. Exodus 21:16 states, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Add to this that no one was to oppress anyone for their race or nationality (Lev. 19:34, Deut. 24:14).”
“On top of all of this, another very important verse condemns enslaving or literally “men-stealers” for enslaving others (1 Tim. 1:9-10).”
Have a look at the slavery entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary for some really good material on ancient slavery. It is very foreign to our concept of slavery that comes from 19th century America. Slaves in the ancient world could be doctors, lawyers, etc. They could buy their freedom. Many even sold themselves into slavery in order to attain a higher status from the person they were enslaved to. A huge % of people at the height of the Roman empire were slaves. It seems that God is more interested in our liberation from sin than liberation from the slavery of the ancient world. I am not trying to say slavery is a good thing or a right thing and I must say that I have to disagree with your comment above that God promotes the good kind of slavery. I think that is a stretch. The point is that God knows someone can be a slave and still be a child of God. God is more concerned about the soul than about someone being under the type of slavery that was prevalent in the ancient world (which was far more mundane than our picture of slavery).