Paul here is not making the statement that slavery is good. But rather, that despite your slavery, you can still serve God by serving your master.
If your master beats you, starves you and works you to death, you've no fault in God's eyes. The master will receive his judgement in due time, and you, your reward.
If you rebel by killing your master, you are now guilty of that. Even if you did escape in those days, you were a citizen of nowhere. You might have to turn to evil ways to make money or avoid recapture. You would also bear guilt for these.
Remember that Paul gives advice from two points of view in most of his writings. In this case, the first point of view is that a slave is stuck in bondage to his master with no viable means of legal freedom. The second is for a slave who does, in which Paul says to pay for your freedom if you have the means to do so.
You do not elevate yourself in God’s eyes by answering cruelty with cruelty. To be held as a slave by men does not diminish you in the eyes of God.
God will deliver justice to all.
Exactly what it says. The original dumping place for those who did not fit into a given society was death. The step up from simply killing undesirables is to enslave them. Then the next step up occurred with indentured servitude which was relatively less harsh. Now we have a system of modern wage worker which is even less harsh, though I still wouldn't call perfect by any measure.
So in context, these words are a message to those who are the lowest on the totem pole at that time to be diligent and accept your place, for things will get better if you do but worse if you try to tear things down. Which is true of all societies. Indeed, things would get better, but each time those who are lowest in a given society try to use violence to change things, it only results in future justification for why they were kept low. And indeed, things did get better given time. Though, like all men, those upon who's shoulders it was built did not live to see it.
You don't have to endorse an unfair social system to urge one another to live out our roles in that system in a Christlike way.
Scripture also commands obedience to kings and emperors, but few of us believe that was a mandate for monarchy over democracy.
It's a complicated subject. If my memory serves me right, this video covers what was or wasn't allowed: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpYlaANfpC4&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpYlaANfpC4&t=2s)
Wow. This is some dishonest bullshit.
Any pastors relying on Strong's should lose their job. That's amateur hour shit. Any pastor saying that the Hebrew for slave should be translated as servant is straight up misleading.
The Bible allows for chattel slavery, violent slavery, multi-generational slavery, breeding your slaves together to get more slaves, sexual slavery, forced marriage, forced labor (corvee slavery), child slavery, * and * indentured servitude. And, as we see in Scripture, those indentured servants often became permanent slaves since the Jubilees were ignored. And when we look at historical records there were no differences between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves.
I'm not sure of how many more types there are, to be honest. This pretty well covers the gamut. It's true that there was no specific racial aspect, but that's a historical oddity anyways only applicable in certain small places/times.
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect/fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ, not with a slavery performed merely for looks, to please people, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul. Render service with enthusiasm, as for the Lord and not for humans, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are enslaved or free.
> And, Lords, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Lord in heaven, and with him there is no partiality. (NRSVUE, adapted)
Yeah, it is always awful to read passages like this and see that the fathers of our faith not only never considered abolition as a goal or moral principle, but that they wanted us to be like slaves. These passages helped to cement nearly 2000 years of further slavery.
I hate it.
It's important to make distinctions between all the different historical examples and definitions of "slavery." Slavery existed before the Law was given, and the Law itself does regulate in several ways.
The Jews had a voluntary form of indentured servitude that required freedom at the end of a set term. When the Israelites conquered Canaan, they were permitted to buy slaves from among the defeated peoples, but there were also laws in place to regulate this practice (see Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25) In the New Testament, we see the apostles give instructions on how Christians slaves should behave.
Usually when we hear "slavery" today we think of all the brutal examples like the African slave trade, the Middle Passage, black slavery in the Americas, and such things. Does the Bible condone Gentiles taking slaves based on their skin color and kidnapping and building entire systems and economies around it? No. Deuteronomy 24:17 actually condemns kidnapping and selling (see also Exodus 21:16 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10) There's also allowances for slaves seeking to gain their freedom in 1 Corinthians 7:21 and Deuteronomy 23: 15-16
Racial slavery is pretty much the difference. Violent abusive chattel slavery, though? Yeah, that was perfectly fine.
And if you're not aware - the rules for slavery in the American south were largely based off of the Bible.
Paul here is not making the statement that slavery is good. But rather, that despite your slavery, you can still serve God by serving your master. If your master beats you, starves you and works you to death, you've no fault in God's eyes. The master will receive his judgement in due time, and you, your reward. If you rebel by killing your master, you are now guilty of that. Even if you did escape in those days, you were a citizen of nowhere. You might have to turn to evil ways to make money or avoid recapture. You would also bear guilt for these. Remember that Paul gives advice from two points of view in most of his writings. In this case, the first point of view is that a slave is stuck in bondage to his master with no viable means of legal freedom. The second is for a slave who does, in which Paul says to pay for your freedom if you have the means to do so.
You do not elevate yourself in God’s eyes by answering cruelty with cruelty. To be held as a slave by men does not diminish you in the eyes of God. God will deliver justice to all.
It interprets itself? Slaves and slave owners should treat each other with respect and love.
Be obedient in your relationship with whom you must obey.
Exactly what it says. The original dumping place for those who did not fit into a given society was death. The step up from simply killing undesirables is to enslave them. Then the next step up occurred with indentured servitude which was relatively less harsh. Now we have a system of modern wage worker which is even less harsh, though I still wouldn't call perfect by any measure. So in context, these words are a message to those who are the lowest on the totem pole at that time to be diligent and accept your place, for things will get better if you do but worse if you try to tear things down. Which is true of all societies. Indeed, things would get better, but each time those who are lowest in a given society try to use violence to change things, it only results in future justification for why they were kept low. And indeed, things did get better given time. Though, like all men, those upon who's shoulders it was built did not live to see it.
You don't have to endorse an unfair social system to urge one another to live out our roles in that system in a Christlike way. Scripture also commands obedience to kings and emperors, but few of us believe that was a mandate for monarchy over democracy.
Certain types of slavery was allowed in Judaism.
> Certain types of slavery was allowed in Judaism. I'm not sure what types weren't allowed. What are you thinking of?
It's a complicated subject. If my memory serves me right, this video covers what was or wasn't allowed: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpYlaANfpC4&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpYlaANfpC4&t=2s)
Wow. This is some dishonest bullshit. Any pastors relying on Strong's should lose their job. That's amateur hour shit. Any pastor saying that the Hebrew for slave should be translated as servant is straight up misleading. The Bible allows for chattel slavery, violent slavery, multi-generational slavery, breeding your slaves together to get more slaves, sexual slavery, forced marriage, forced labor (corvee slavery), child slavery, * and * indentured servitude. And, as we see in Scripture, those indentured servants often became permanent slaves since the Jubilees were ignored. And when we look at historical records there were no differences between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves. I'm not sure of how many more types there are, to be honest. This pretty well covers the gamut. It's true that there was no specific racial aspect, but that's a historical oddity anyways only applicable in certain small places/times.
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect/fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ, not with a slavery performed merely for looks, to please people, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul. Render service with enthusiasm, as for the Lord and not for humans, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are enslaved or free. > And, Lords, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Lord in heaven, and with him there is no partiality. (NRSVUE, adapted) Yeah, it is always awful to read passages like this and see that the fathers of our faith not only never considered abolition as a goal or moral principle, but that they wanted us to be like slaves. These passages helped to cement nearly 2000 years of further slavery. I hate it.
It's important to make distinctions between all the different historical examples and definitions of "slavery." Slavery existed before the Law was given, and the Law itself does regulate in several ways. The Jews had a voluntary form of indentured servitude that required freedom at the end of a set term. When the Israelites conquered Canaan, they were permitted to buy slaves from among the defeated peoples, but there were also laws in place to regulate this practice (see Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25) In the New Testament, we see the apostles give instructions on how Christians slaves should behave. Usually when we hear "slavery" today we think of all the brutal examples like the African slave trade, the Middle Passage, black slavery in the Americas, and such things. Does the Bible condone Gentiles taking slaves based on their skin color and kidnapping and building entire systems and economies around it? No. Deuteronomy 24:17 actually condemns kidnapping and selling (see also Exodus 21:16 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10) There's also allowances for slaves seeking to gain their freedom in 1 Corinthians 7:21 and Deuteronomy 23: 15-16
Racial slavery is pretty much the difference. Violent abusive chattel slavery, though? Yeah, that was perfectly fine. And if you're not aware - the rules for slavery in the American south were largely based off of the Bible.
People can twist and exploit religion for all sorts of things, if they want to badly enough. That's no surprise.