The Bible Advocates Slavery

Your definition of the word slave is fine with me, but I disagree with your other definition. I used the word advocate, not advocation. I did not say "The Bible advocation Slavery." This does not make sense. They are two different words that have two different meanings. According to the American Heritage College Dictionary (4th Ed.) the definition of advocate is "to speak, plead, or argue in favor of." I ask that my opponent use either this or the other one that I mentioned in the first round as the definition. I asked in the first round that my opponent use both Testaments as evidence that the Bible advocates slavery, and he only used the Old Testament. I will let this slide for the first round, but I expect my opponent to use the entire Bible as the basis for his claim, since this debate is not titled "The Old Testament" but rather "The Bible," and I have given an ample definition of the Bible as well. Since I agree with my opponent's definition of "slave," I ask that he also provide his interpretation of "wholly subject." I interpret "wholly subject" as being that a person has no freedom of action, is subject to the will of another, and whose services are completely under the control of another. With this interpretation in mind, my opponent's use of Leviticus 25:45-46 and Exodus 21:7 were taken out of context and misunderstood as well. Now, my opponent mentions Leviticus 25:45-46 as evidence that the Bible "speaks, pleads, or argues in favor of" Slavery. However, these verses do not advocate the ownership of slaves, but rather address the simple fact that slavery existed, and the proper way to treat them. In the Old Testament, servants were given rights under God such as not working on the Sabbath (Ex 20:10), not to be oppressed (Ex 22:21; Lev 19:33), to be loved (Deut 10:19), to be relieved in distress (Lev 25:35), to have the gleaning of the harvest (Lev 19:10; Lev 23:22), and were allowed to worship in the temple (1 Kings 8:41-43). In the Baker Commentary on The Bible, scholar Walter Elwell describes the verses in detail: "When poor people needed additional loans, interest was never to be taken from them, and no food was to be sold to them for profit. A poor person could hire himself out to a rich person who then had to care for him; the poor person, however, was not to be treated as a slave, but rather, as a hired worker or temporary resident until the next year of Jubilee…such individuals were to be freed in the seventh year of their service, but if the Jubilee came first, then their release came sooner…The poor and possibly their children could then regain the land of their fathers." Concerning Exodus 21:7, my opponent has taken the verse out of context yet again and misunderstood it as well. There is a difference between how we view slavery today and how slavery was viewed in Hebrew times, so I ask that the audience as well as my opponent keep this in mind. I will elaborate in later rounds on this topic. Concerning the verse, it is describing a form of adoption in Hebrew times. The Baker Commentary describes this as well: "A young woman was often given by a wealthy man to his daughter at marriage to be her maid, and in some cases, to serve as a surrogate mother (Gen 16:1-4). A man might purchase the woman to be his wife or concubine, or to give her to his son for the same purpose. If the man decided against marriage, he was to allow her to be redeemed by a near kinsman." Again, there is no clear indication in the verse that the Bible advocates slavery, but addresses a form of adoption in Hebrew times. Now, I would like to introduce my opening arguments. The Bible does not advocate slavery in any way, but merely addresses it. The Bible clearly states in both Testaments that all human beings have certain rights and that everyone is equal in Christ. Exodus 21:16 "16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." In the Old Testament, the eighth commandment says "Thou shall not steal." Slavery is the theft of an individual's sovereignty of will. Deuteronomy 23:15,16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." God cared so much for those in captivity of any kind that he sent his only son, Jesus Christ, to die for their freedom: Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised," The New Testament urges masters to come together with their slaves in brotherhood. Ephesians 6:9 "And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." If the Bible advocated slavery, why would God condemn slave traders? 1 Timothy 1:10 "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" If the Bible advocated slavery, why would Paul urge a master to accept a servant as a "brother beloved"? Philemon 1:16 ‘Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?" I will end my opening arguments here.