The Bible Advocates Slavery

*Side note- I thought it was pretty cool when I typed in the title and it came up as 3rd most popular on Google :). *Side note 2- If we don't get around to discussing every part of my argument (both OT and NT), would you be willing to make a pt.2 with say another 3 rounds? I ask my opponent this: what comes to mind when you think of the term "church?" When Paul says that he will visit the churches in his letters such as Ephesus, does he mean that he is going to visit a building, or does he mean that he is going to go to Ephesus and visit all the believers who lived there? As you can see, the word has a different meaning today than it had in the past. The term "slavery" (the keeping of ‘slaves' as a practice or institution) can be similarly applied to see the difference between how slavery is addressed in the Old Testament (OT) and the New World times (NWT) of Europe/America. Because there are dramatic differences between the meanings of slavery today and how the OT viewed slavery, the OT's use should not be considered as slavery, but as something else, a form of indentured servanthood. Here is my main source: http://www.christian-thinktank.com... The author uses many scholarly sources and I encourage the audience as well as my opponent to read it. My opponent may not want to read all of it, so I will discuss the main points it portrays. All quotes used come from this source. First, the term "slave" has many different meanings in the OT: "Finally, the same term was also used in the figurative meaning "the slave (or servant) of God." Thus, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh (Exod 32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11, etc.). Similarly, all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called slaves of their kings, including even wives, sons, and brothers of the latter (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5, etc.; cf. also Gen 27:37; 32:4). Addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their slaves (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19, etc.). Ruth refers to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz (Ruth 3:9). Being a vassal of the Philistine king Achish, David called himself his slave (1 Sam 28:2)." Our agreement on the definition of ‘slave' is: a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. As you can see, these are completely different views of how slaves were perceived then and now. The meaning of slavery today (Western antebellum slavery) and in the OT are very different: NWT- Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite. OT- Not the case. It was designed to serve the poor. (Lev 25:35-43) NWT-Slavery was involuntary; humans were captured by force (against their will) and sold via slave-traders. OT-Slavery was often voluntary and varied (Deut 15:12-15). Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death (Ex 21:16). A majority of the instances is when someone ‘sells oneself' (Lev 25:39; Lev 25:47; Deut 15:12). Most were limited to 6 years in length, and continuation was a voluntary act of the ‘slave' (Ex 21:5; Deut 15:16). NWT- Slaves were frequently mistreated, and punishments often resulted in death. OT- Forbade harsh treatment (Lev 25:43; Lev 25:46), set stipulations for positive treatment (Deut 15:18), set tight boundaries around punishment of servants (Ex 21:20, 26-27), similar to servants, free men could likewise be punished by the legal system by rod-beating (Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). "However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household--there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the later Roman world." NWT-Slaves lived in separation from their owners, didn't participate in the owner's fortunes OT-Given liberal gifts from the possessions of masters upon release (Deut 15:13), almost all servitude was domestic (lived in house with master). NWT-Slaves were considered property in exclusion to their humanity. Shooting a slave is like shooting a tomato, looked upon as disposable goods. No demand on how masters were to treat slaves, economic value was a main deterrent to abuse. OT-Severely restricted notion of property; did not preclude humanity of servant or accountability of master. Both land and servants belonged to God (Lev 25:23; Lev 25:39), masters held accountable to God for treatment of land/people; Property not seen as ‘owned disposable goods' but as economic output (including labor) (Lev 25:14; Ex 21:18; Lev 25:49); Elders ordered to make sure owners did not mistreat them (Lev 25:53). NWT-Slaves could not own property, belonged to owner. OT-Slaves could have own property, could prosper and buy own freedom, maintained any family/property they had before entering into servitude arrangement. "Naturally, there were a certain number of privileged slaves. Thus, according to 2 Samuel (19:17), Ziba, a slave of Saul's family, had fifteen sons and twenty slaves. To judge from Leviticus (25:47–50), some slaves of Hebrew origin could have raised the means in order to purchase their freedom." NWT- Slavery lasted forever, with practically no means of obtaining freedom other than running away, in some cases of owners granting freedom, they were given no property with it OT- Very easy to obtain freedom. Freedom could be bought by relatives (Lev 25:49), could buy own freedom whether master wanted to let him go or not (Lev 25:49), every 7th year all servants go free (Ex 21:2; Deut 15:12), minor injuries due to abusive action by masters resulted in immediate freedom (Ex 21:16). It is clear that the institution in the Old Testament was voluntary, flexible, temporary, and gave the people under it many rights, very different from the Western slavery we view today. When you apply the definition of ‘slavery' to what I have mentioned in the OT, it does not pan out. So what then is it in the OT? It is a form of indentured servanthood. When you apply this term to what I have mentioned previously about the OT, you will see that it is strikingly similar: "a form of debt bondage worker. The laborer is under contract of an employer for usually three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, drink, clothing, lodging and other necessities. Unlike a slave, an indentured servant is required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract."(1) 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 1a.Galations 3:11,19 1b. Source? 1c. I have no clue what you are talking about. Can you make it a little more understandable for me? 1d. a stranger could be a captive of war, could he or she not? 1e.see my above argument; this is a form of indentured servanthood, not slavery Definition of slave: see above argument 2a. Colossians 4:1 2b. So then you also agree that God looks down upon slavery? Read over my statement again. 3c.see above argument 3d. 1 Timothy 1:10 3e. Then why did you? And I quote: "The same way that Jesus told the slave to work even harder for his master, because the slave is helping another believer by his efforts." You specifically claimed that Jesus "told the slave to work even harder for his master" in the book of Philemon, which is not true. Please defend this statement and not dodge the question by introducing new verses.