What is the view of current Biblical literalists on the ethics of Slavery?

[astro]

This wiki says the Bible supports slavery in several references and was used by many in the American South to justify the institution of slavery.

The prevailing laws against it aside, what is the view of modern Biblical literalists on whether slavery is morally and ethically permissible or not?

The Bible contains several references to slavery, which was a common practice in antiquity. The Bible stipulates the treatment of slaves, especially in the Old Testament.[1][2][3] There are also references to slavery in the New Testament.[4][5] Male Israelite slaves were to be offered release after seven years of service, with some conditions.[6][7][8] Foreign slaves and their posterity became the perpetual property of the owner’s family,[9] except in the case of certain injuries.[10]

The Bible was cited as justification for slavery by defenders.[11][12] Abolitionists have also used text from the New Testament to argue for the manumission of slaves

The earlier[20][20][28][29][30] Covenant Code instructs that if a thief is caught after sunrise, and is unable to make restitution for the theft, then the thief should be enslaved.[31] Children of a deceased debtor may be forced into slavery to pay off outstanding debts;[28][32] similarly it is evident that debtors could be forced to sell their children into slavery to pay the creditors.[28]

Sexual slavery, or being sold to be a wife, was common in the ancient world. It’s commonly debated whether or not the Old Testament ever condones this,[33][34] however throughout the Old Testament the taking of multiple wives was recorded many times.[35][36] An Israelite father could sell his unmarried daughters into servitude, with the expectation or understanding that the master or his son would eventually marry her.[citation needed] It is understood by Jewish and Christian commentators that this referred to the sale of a daughter, who “is not arrived to the age of twelve years and a day, and this through poverty.”[37]
“And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights.”

[grude]

For whatever it is worth, the slavery of antiquity and the type outlined in the bible is clearly not the chattel/racial type slavery practiced in the USA before emancipation. They are very far apart.

[njtt]

Are you expecting intellectual consistency (or embarrassment about inconsistency) from Biblical literalists? :dubious:

[Flyer]

The Bible–in addition to being the word of God–is ALSO a product of its times.

For example, Paul tells us to pray for the king. Does that mean that Christians should start a revolution to bring back monarchy?

In much the same way, the passages about slavery are largely about how to act humanely within a certain cultural system.

Exodus 21:2, 3 (emphasis added)–
“If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he was married, then his wife shall go out with him.”

Furthermore, the Bible condemns racism. Acts 17:26–
“[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” We are to love our fellowman, not hate him.

[Czarcasm]

@grude

For whatever it is worth, the slavery of antiquity and the type outlined in the bible is clearly not the chattel/racial type slavery practiced in the USA before emancipation. They are very far apart.

If it was that clear, how did some preachers come to a different conclusion back in the day?

[Malthus]

As for Biblical Literalists, I always wondered how the dealt with the fact that they were not living in a world with a single, central Temple in Jerusalem, with a semi-heriditary caste of priests ordering sacrificial rituals there - a set of facts assumed in the OT.

Leviticus includes some quite specific rituals one is supposed to do, like sacrificing two turtle-doves after menstruation (Leviticus 15:29). How do Biblical Literalists justify not performing these rituals?

[cher3]

Don’t Biblical literalists give themselves a general pass to pick and choose from the old testament rules about behavior, based on the idea of a new covenant? Jesus seemed to follow some traditions and ignore others.

[Malthus]

@cher3

Don’t Biblical literalists give themselves a general pass to pick and choose from the old testament rules about behavior, based on the idea of a new covenant? Jesus seemed to follow some traditions and ignore others.

I assume that’s the Answer™ to most such quandaries - “Biblical Literalists” don’t really exist. Everyone who is religious, including so-called “literalists”, picks, chooses and and interprets the OT, for the very simple reason that actually attempting to literally follow the OT is, in point of fact, impossible. It is based on, and assumes the existence of, an Iron Age society that no longer exists.

[Grey]

It was my understanding that with Jesus, and the institution of communion, a new covenant was formed between man and god making the older laws inapplicable.

[PorchePine]

@Grey

It was my understanding that with Jesus, and the institution of communion, a new covenant was formed between man and god making the older laws inapplicable.

But literalists still want to use some of the old laws. (By “some”, of course, I mean the ones that don’t cause them personal hardship. The ones that affect other people are still valid.)

[Malthus]

@Grey

It was my understanding that with Jesus, and the institution of communion, a new covenant was formed between man and god making the older laws inapplicable.

Well, presumably some “biblical literalists” could be Jewish, which would remove that objection!

[crowmanyclouds]

@Flyer

{…}
Exodus 21:2, 3 (emphasis added)–
“If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he was married, then his wife shall go out with him.”
{…}

Exodus 21: 4, 5, 6 (emphasis added)–
"If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.

And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."

@grude

For whatever it is worth, the slavery of antiquity and the type outlined in the bible is clearly not the chattel/racial type slavery practiced in the USA before emancipation. They are very far apart.

Leviticus: 44, 45, 46 (emphasis added)–
"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: **and they shall be your possession.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever**"

CMC fnord!

[Dale_Sams]

@Flyer

The Bible–in addition to being the word of God–is ALSO a product of its times.
Furthermore, the Bible condemns racism. Acts 17:26–
“[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” We are to love our fellowman, not hate him.

Except when it doesn’t

Deuteronomy 23:2

“No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 7:3-4

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

Leviticus 19:19

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.
Deuteronomy 7:3

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,
Nehemiah 13:3

As soon as the people heard the law, they separated from Israel all those of foreign descent.
Numbers 25:6-8

And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel, while they were weeping in the entrance of the tent of meeting. When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped.

[Flyer]

Those quotes are not about racism. Ruth, an ancestor of David and therefore of Jesus, was a Moabite.

It’s fascinating how you could quote from Deuteronomy 7 giving the reason for those prohibitions, and somehow seemingly pay no attention to it.

[Dale_Sams]

@Flyer

Those quotes are not about racism. Ruth, an ancestor of David and therefore of Jesus, was a Moabite.

It’s fascinating how you could quote from Deuteronomy 7 giving the reason for those prohibitions, and somehow seemingly pay no attention to it.

Yeah…God was REAL BIG on equality between tribes. What with ordering Joshua to slaughter every man, woman and child in several settlements. ‘Chosen people, Schmosen People’

Only the most pedantic definition of ‘racism’ could excuse all those quotes.

[grude]

@Czarcasm

If it was that clear, how did some preachers come to a different conclusion back in the day?

Self serving rationalizations? I mean remember the bible has stuff about freeing your slaves at jubilee and advice on how to free female slaves and marry them to your son etc. Would that have really flown under USA style slavery?

I mean I’m not defending biblical style slavery, just saying it was slightly different than that practiced in the USA.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@PorchePine

But literalists still want to use some of the old laws. (By “some”, of course, I mean the ones that don’t cause them personal hardship. The ones that affect other people are still valid.)

Nonsense, Biblical “literalists” will affirm the prohibitions on adultery and divorce too. The question thus becomes one of division between the ceremonial, moral, and civil aspects of the Law.

[PorchePine]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Nonsense, Biblical “literalists” will affirm the prohibitions on adultery and divorce too. The question thus becomes one of division between the ceremonial, moral, and civil aspects of the Law.

So the prohibition against homosexuality is enforceable, but the one against mixed fabrics isn’t, based on the “division between the ceremonial, moral, and civil aspects of the law”. Which means that they only want to use some of the laws, namely the ones that don’t cause them hardship.

[Malacandra]

I read the thread title with amusement and opened up expecting the actual premise to be more like “Let’s have some people who aren’t Biblical literalists construct some strawmen, then the rest of us can beat them and pat each other on the back over how much better we are than those silly Christians”. Of course, it was possible that I might have been mistaken.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@PorchePine

So the prohibition against homosexuality is enforceable, but the one against mixed fabrics isn’t, based on the “division between the ceremonial, moral, and civil aspects of the law”. Which means that they only want to use some of the laws, namely the ones that don’t cause them hardship.

No, because these Christians are perfectly willing to accept the far stricter standards on adultery as imposed by Jesus (ie “whoever lusts with his eyes…”), so its not due to “hardship”. The problem with some of these Internet atheists is that they think they have the Christians entrapped when theologians have come up with numerous approaches to them in the last two millennia. Additionally I might add that most of the moral law was either explicitly or implicitly reiterated in the NT (for example with regards to homosexuality see Romans 1).