I apologies to you Bill, I had you down as a Christian Reconstructionist. You are clearly not. Thank God you oppose slavery.

I must disagree with you about the ‘humanity’ of Roman slaves. According to Eduard Lohse The New Testament Environment (London: SCM, 1974, trans 1976), p.212ff; slaves had little or no rights with some limited exceptions. they were better of than North American slaves (According to Stark) but not the slaves under the Spanish. For instance they did not have the right to marry or even have sex. Stark attributed the decline in the dependance of slave (due to lack of reproduction) to creating the necessary condition for the elimination of slavery {Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts and the End of Slavery (Princeton: Princeton, 2003), p. 299ff}.

Thanks…

Michael Boswell

I am no expert, but as far as I can see, “freedom” is the only object that is available for the verb “you must use it”. I would be a bit suspicious of those who would even come up with the idea that the object might/should be anything different (although I think St. John Chrysostom was one, which kind of takes the sting out of my argument!)

David said, “something that often comes to mind is that while slavery and the slave trade has been abolished in our society, we no longer ship slaves here, rather, we ship our companies overseas. We often hear of the poor pay, long hours, and dangerous working conditions of the labour sourced overseas”

Now this is a good point. Perhaps Bill could consider an article on this. I felt sick when I heard that a company that I have a few shares in will be sending it’s call centre operations to India. The poverty and desperation of the majority of Indians provides an environment where even trained labour is very cheap, which in turn is used by Western companies in order to save mega-dollars. My dividend will undoubtedly increase, but I’m not sure that I will be able to accept it without my hand shaking.

Damien Carson, Wynnum, Queensland

You commented, “…the NT writers do not say: “Thou must not trade in slaves”…”

Had you noticed 1 Ti 1:10? “…slave traders, … and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching…”

James Wheeler

Please be assured that I am just as opposed to slavery as you are, I probably was not communicating this properly. Yes, Damien, I certainly agree with your ‘do unto others’, and do appreciate that there are some differences between what is commonly known as slavery and employment. Also the fact that NT ethics by their nature lead to abolition of slavery. But I do believe that employment without accountability can become just as horrible and sometimes similar to slavery – just consider child labour in mines.

Yet something that often comes to mind is that while slavery and the slave trade has been abolished in our society, we no longer ship slaves here, rather, we ship our companies overseas. We often hear of the poor pay, long hours, and dangerous working conditions of the labour sourced overseas. Of course the argument goes that we are doing them a favour, but really it does beg the question as to whether this is more slavery in the name of employment. As the end consumer, we are the benefactors of this. Now I do appreciate that this is not always the case, and some companies are more open to accountability than others. But it does cause you to wonder when you can buy a DVD player for less than two hours of our average pay. It is almost like they are spending their lives making the entertainment systems that we spend half our time watching our favourite movies on. I have wondered in the past “Should I buy that product marked ‘Made in ….’ knowing that it could well have been made by the very pastor I heard from the Voice of the Martyrs was incarcerated and subjected to forced labour?” In that sense, I am the benefactor of slave labour, and it is almost like I have my own slave!

So do you see what I am grappling with? I don’t like this, but it is a hard reality that a number of the products on my desk may well have had this source. I can’t help but think that unfortunately because of our fallen state, and despite all my efforts for change and reform (which I see as a God given duty), on this earth there will always be classes of people. As a Christian that does make me look forward to Christ’s return when He will judge the earth and restore justice. That is what I put my hope in, but still realizing that God can still bless my efforts, just as He did for William Wilberforce. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

David Clay, Melbourne

A helpful and informative debate thus far. Keep it up. Maybe I can add just a few more points. Slavery in the OT was somewhat complex, and care is needed in order to make proper nuanced distinctions. But one point worth repeating is that for many Hebrews, slavery was voluntary indentured servitude. To work off a debt and/or escape poverty, a Hebrew would voluntarily become a hired servant or bound labourer. But his service had to end in six years, or in the Year of Jubilee (see Lev. 25:39-43, eg.). These and other humane conditions meant that slavery back then was much different to modern slavery.

The same with slavery in the first century. The slave back then had considerable freedom, and was granted many rights. Often the master/slave relationship was a mutually beneficial one. So again, it differed markedly from that of recent American history.

As to 1 Corinthians 7:21, this is a difficult passage with tons of ink spilled over how best to translate the Greek. The truth is, one can go various ways as to how this passage is to be understood. If you consult various Bible translations, or various commentaries, you will see a fairly even split on this. For example, the passage can imply, ‘do not let it worry you’ [that is, the condition of being a slave and the possibility of freedom], and instead concentrate on service to the Lord; or there is the idea of ‘making positive use of it’ [the opportunity for freedom]. Is Paul saying to slaves, remain as you are (as in v. 20), or to take advantage of the offer of freedom?

And 7:21b is a difficult phrase, which can go either way. Thus the NIV renders it, “Although if you can gain your freedom, do so,” while the NAB renders it, “Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery”. Unfortunately here, grammar, syntax and even context all can be used in either understanding. Even the short phrase “do so” is unclear as to referent. It can mean make the most of, or take advantage of, but of what? Slavery? Freedom?

The context (7:17-24) is a call to stability and peace. Paul wants the Corinthians to not let their social conditions bother them, because their calling as Christians transcends and transforms these conditions. As one commentator seeks to explain, “The call of God releases the slave to the new freedom of an ultimate relationship with God, as the call of God enslaves the free person to that same ultimate relatedness.”

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I understand your argument that slavery and employment are at least comparable but I disagree and believe that the argument is playing with semantics.

Bill’s article above points out that NT ethics eventually led to the abolition, not the reform of slavery. Also, the NT writers do not say: “Thou must not trade in slaves”, but taken as a whole, their teachings demand that masters consider slaves better than themselves. I think Bill is a bit conservative saying this was “radical”… “revolutionary” may have been a better choice of words!!

Paul wrote in 1 Cor 7, “don’t be concerned about your slavery, but rather, if you are able to become free, you must (imperative). Read together with Jesus’ summary of his personal ethics teaching, “to do to others as you would have them do to you”, I don’t understand how you can argue that owning slaves is not inconsistent with the Bible.

Damien Carson, Wynnum, Queensland

As to the prostitutes of Fiztroy – yes indeed the issue of prositutition is condemned in Scripture – but the terms of the contract were illegal by Australian law – the government is ordained by God for the administering of justice and thus should be obeyed. So if you hired them as typists under similar terms – sure, you are contravening the law in Australia and the charges against you are not unjust. Of coarse you would ask me then what if it happened in another country where the contract was legal. Your problem is with meaning of terminology. There are contracts, and there are contracts. There would have been many slaves in Biblical times who were living much more dignified lives than many who are in employment in Australia today. You can see this in the Biblical provision for Israelites to voluntarily bind themselves to their masters for life (Ex. 21:5 – 6). The question would then be are you treating your ’slaves’ as fellow human beings as God requires you to, knowing they while they are obliged to you, you cannot own them in every way and you will be answerable to God for your treatment of them – a God who shows no favouritism.

You must understand that God never instituted slavery. It is not His design for human life. However, because our forefather Adam sinned and rebelled against God, everything in this world fell below His standard. There were some things that were allowed – but these were never God’s ideal.

You are also approaching the whole issue with premises that have been formed in our society, and are held as so precious. I question those premises. In this humanistic society, we hold the happiness of humanity as the highest virtue. As a result, we desire freedom and all the rights we can think of. However, the Bible states that we all are sinners, and are deserving of eternal hellfire. We are born slaves of sin, whether we like it or not. It took the death of God’s own Son Jesus to buy us back, so that instead of being slaves to sin, we can be given the right to become sons of God if we repent from sin and turn our lives completely over to God. No, the happiness of humanity is not the highest virtue – it is the glory and honour of God. If we truly want to honour God, then we will treat all humans, including those who may be obliged to us, with dignity and respect because they are created in God’s image too.

David Clay, Melbourne

Employees agree to render a particular service for a set price – that’s the way economies have worked for thousands of years. The issue with slavery is not the hire of labourers but the fact that one person stakes a claim of ownership over another and deprives them of basic human diginity. You are from Melbourne, David – do you remember the case a while back of the five Thai women that were brought into the country and given contracts to work as prostitutes in Fitzroy? They understood that they were coming to Australia to be prostitutes and they were all given contracts of $45k per year… apart from the line of work, in your opinion, how was their treatment unbiblical? If I, as a Christian was an office manager and hired them as typists would it have been inconsistent, and would the charges against me have been unjust?

Damien Carson, Wynnum, Queensland

So slavery in itself is not really the moral issue. The moral issue at hand is the treatment of others as sub-human. The Bible never allows for this. Indeed, the laws in the Bible regarding slavery are just as applicable to current employment! Yes, slaves are to obey their masters. Today this means that employees are to obey their employers. Masters, in turn, are to treat their slaves as fellow human beings and respect their God-given rights. The same goes for employers in how they treat their employees.

Thus it is not inconsistent for a Christian to have a slave, whether it be Biblical times, colonial times, or even today in the name of employment; providing that the Christian obeys the Scriptural teaching on how they are to treat their slaves, or employees for today’s sake. Indeed, the reason slavery in the colonial times had to be abolished was due to the fact that dehumanization was so ingrained in the practice.

Paul, I fail to see how you use this to be a charge against Biblical inerrency. The Bible is entirely consistent in this area. If a person, institution, or society claimed to be Christian but ignored the Biblical laws regarding slaves, their claim would rightly so be questioned.

David Clay, Melbourne