I've heard people criticize the Bible for not taking a harder line against slavery. The general defense that Christians make (and it's a good one) is that slavery was a fact of life in Biblical times; the Bible isn't a political treatise intended to reform temporal governments, but rather a spiritual treatise intended to bring all men and women into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Critics say that passages that mention slavery appear neutral towards the institution at best:
1 Corinthians 7:17-24Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
As the passage makes clear, the point is that we should keep God's commands rather than worry so much about our earthly situation. Nevertheless, if a slave can gain freedom -- or a totalitarian dictatorship can gain democracy -- he should do it.
However, last week while preparing for my small group at church I did find one passage that explicitly condemns slavery:
1 Timothy 1:8-11We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
So here's a list of evil acts (a common thing to find in Paul's writings) with a member that isn't found elsewhere: slave trading, which presumably inclues slave owning.
Actually, no: slave traders and slave owners are not exactly the same thing, and even a lot of slave societies treated them rather differently (as in the antebellum South).
Generally speaking, the Golden Rule makes it very hard to be a slaveowner (since nobody wants to be a slave themselves, for the most part). Not that the application was easy -- it took Christianity a thousand years to pretty much abolish slavery in its own lands, and then the whole job had to be done over again when the Europeans expanded out into other lands and ran into people it was easy to enslave. At least it only took four hundred years the second time.
From listening to Dennis (and guests) addressthe slaver issue from the Jewish OT department, I take the impression that atleast in the Jewish Theological opinion slavery was allowed, but there were rules regarding the treatment of slaves and enforced by the fact if your slave ran away they were free. Being that if you wanted to keep your slaves you had to go over and above to trreat them well enough so they would stay.so it incorporates the first two aspects of regulating something to the point where not doing it has more benifit than doing it.
Phileom is also a letter Paul wrote on behalf of a runaway slave.
TZ: It may be the case that many societies viewed slaver traders, slave owners, and slave procurers differently, but fundamentally they seem morally the same to me. You can't be a slave owner without someone acquiring slaves, which means you either enslaved people yourself or you traded for them with someone else.
tP: Yes, under ancient Jewish law slavery was very different than in the antebellum South. Also, in many contexts, slaves were taken from defeated nations, and the alternative to slavery was death, so, slavery was seen as the more humane, civilized option.
I think it's quite a stretch to say the Bible condemned slavery at any level. Take Ephesians 6:5-9:
What is remarkable is not so much what Paul told slave owners to do, as what he emphatically did not tell them to do, namely to free them.
MW-
Our modern understanding of historical slavery is skewed by the righteous indignation against the evils that were perpetrated in the antibellum south.
The word translated by NIV as "slave traders" is alternatively translated as "enslavers" "kidnappers" and "men stealers." The general sense is NOT that one holds rightful civil authority over a slave, but that they capture free men and force them into slavery against their will.
"Did he just say 'against their will?'"
Indeed. Folks became slaves in several ways in the ancient world. Prisoners captured in battle and convicted criminals were made slaves. Debtors in bankruptcy could offer their children or even their selves up into slavery. It was also not uncommon for someone born into poverty to sell themselves. The term "bond-servant" is based on this idea, that one has freely chosen to put himself into the service of another.
If you think about it, our modern economy is based upon this principle of "bond-service." In exchange for economic benefit, most people end up unwillingly rendering service to masters they despise. They are free to choose different masters, but ultimately they must serve someone else. The only "freeman" then is one that owns his own company or is self sufficient by other means (as in living off the farm.)
I'm sure my view on this won't be very popular...