Slavery is actually a big part of the Bible. In the New Testament, the noun form of "slave" (doulos) occurs 127 times, and its verb form occurs 25. Scripture doesn't hide the fact of slavery. It's right there again and again.
This week Nike, the shoe company, canceled its Betsy Ross Flag Sneaker, which had a rendition of the flag of the original thirteen states on its heel. Colin Kaepernick, who works for Nike, objected. Vox, a site sympathetic to him, reported:
This early version of the flag, he argued, is pulled from the era of slavery and doesn’t warrant celebration.Many are predicting sales of Nike will increase based upon this decision. July 4th and this story got me thinking again about slavery.
Neither Jesus or Paul tried to stop slavery. Did they approve of it? Both did.
Slavery in the Bible isn't an overly complicated issue, but I want to give what I believe are the cliffs notes on it. It's worth understanding, because there is good and bad here.
One, slavery itself is acceptable to God. Two, slavery is regulated in the Bible by God and violating His regulations is sinning against Him. Three, ending slavery isn't a target for the church, even as it wasn't for Jesus and Paul.
Those three points are hard for the modern American mind. The institution of slavery doesn't exist in the United States any more, but as seen in the Nike controversy above and others like it, it's still an issue. Thinking about slavery in a biblical way is of the greatest value.
I want to start with the regulations. Kidnapping is wrong, so capturing someone and making him a slave is a violation (Exodus 21:16). That would prohibit a slave trade and involuntary slavery. Having a racial component to slavery is wrong, because the Bible teaches against racial superiority. Everyone is equal in essence in the sight of God. All the other regulations of slavery would fit the regulations in scripture for how anyone treats another human being.
A lot of the society of Jesus and Paul violated scripture. The mission of the church superseded stopping what was wrong in the culture. The focus was the permanent perfection of everything under the reign of Jesus Christ. The priority is the kingdom of the Lord over all temporal, short-term human institutions. The nature of change is important in scripture. For a Christian, the successful long term changes of a society or culture depend on belief of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The world doesn't understand the last point. Nothing could be more important to the world than its seventy to one hundred year lifespan on earth. However, not to God. Jesus or Paul don't attempt to upheave social institutions, which include marriage and government.
If you are slave, be the best slave for Jesus Christ. If you are wife to an unsaved husband, be the best wife for Jesus Christ. If you are in an oppressive government, be the best citizen of the state for Jesus Christ. The Bible treats this life like the short life that it is. I don't assume that living according to scripture won't turn the world into the best possible place even in the short term. The permanent though should not be sacrificed on the altar of the immediate.
The Bible teaches that Christians have their identities in Jesus Christ. They are not a Jew or Gentile, but they are a Christian. They are not male or female. They are a Christian. They are not bond or free, but Christians. That brings me back to the first point.
The Bible teaches slavery. Believers are slaves of Jesus Christ. Every person is a slave to something or someone. Paul said you were either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness -- you are either one or the other and not both at the same time.
The hierarchy of slavery isn't wrong. An earthly master isn't better than his slave, but he has authority over him. All men are created equal, like Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. Submission to someone in authority over you doesn't mean he is better than you. His position is greater even as God the Father is greater than God the Son.
The kind of slavery before the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation and the series of constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War doesn't exist any more in the United States. Maybe that history of slavery is still a concern to unbelievers, but it shouldn't matter to a Christian. The slavery issue is a distraction from what the real problem is. Christians shouldn't cooperate with that distraction as they so often do today, so that they will appear to be "woke."
Anyone who rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ will go to Hell. Hell will be worse for everyone than any other form of slavery that exists on earth. Rescuing people from sin and Hell must far outweigh any other cause. Nothing is worse.
There are things worse than slavery that violate biblical regulation of slavery. If we can't be more concerned about those things over the slavery issue, then our values are truly perverse.
In one sense, everyone is owned by God as a submissive slave, or as a rebel against, following his own way. On the other hand, believers are voluntarily slaves of Jesus Christ. Believers do not do well to cooperate with a general dislike of the concept of slavery. We want to encourage slavery to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If someone doesn't acquiesce to the Lordship of Christ, he'll be a slave anyway to the world, the flesh, and the devil and meet a damnable end.
20 comments:
Whoa whoa whoa, Bro. Brandenburg, it's like you're rejecting the modernism mindset or something!
Too bad Bro. Brandenburg that you have believed the lie that doulos means slave. You're not saying anything different than modern, corrupt bible versions when you espouse that. NO Christian is a slave! John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." v.36, "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." Do you think that's approving of slavery? Do you think that means we're slaves to Christ? I'm not a SLAVE, I'm a SON (John 1:12)! This here from you is an example of very bad preaching that Thomas Ross ought to separate from. Where, pray tell, do you get your definition of it as slave? Not from the King James Bible! It goes without saying that those 127 occurrences that doulos is in the NT that it in NOT ONE of them has "slave" there. They obviously knew the difference since they used "slave" in Jer. 2:14 and Rev. 18:13, and that's it! Just twice! They also knew the term "bondslave" since they used it in 1 Maccabees 2:11, but they didn't use that in the Bible text either. So, who's right, you, the modern fellow that lifts up his statements in judgment of what the KJB says, which God has blessed, or were the KJB translators right? I think I'll side with the time-honored and God blessed translation of the word of God in English, the KJB. Check KJB translator Lancelot Andrewes' book A pattern of catechistical doctrine, pub. 1846 by Oxford, p. 131 where he plainly says that doulos is a servant. He also distinguished between "bondman" and "slave" on p. 93. Whose Greek prowess is better? These approximately 54 men who translated the KJB, going through every passage at least 14 times, at least so many of them being fluent in Greek as to talk to each other in Greek, or you, a guy so many centuries removed who most likely is following corrupt critical text scholarship who have defined Greek terms with secular meanings? You know, if you would just preach it how the King James Bible has it you wouldn't preach such astoundingly bad doctrine as this here. You read too much of the Calvinist John MacArthur or something. Like heresy, if you'd get the definition right, then it would preclude you from preaching such bad doctrine, which is incontrovertibly false teaching. Preaching a person is a slave controverts the Baptist distinctive of soul liberty since slavery implies a person is completely divested of freedom and personal rights. Not only are you not a KJB believer, you and not Baptistic. Did you know that Satanists and New Agers call Christians slaves, and that they instead are the free ones? Why are you using their terminology? I am a SERVANT of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.
Thanks Theo.
Danny,
I thought it would be good to deal with your comment, because I think it represents the thinking of thousands of people. It's very wrong thinking too and thousands have it. Certain aspects of your thinking go into the millions have it and that is where you pervert the gospel enough to condemn people to Hell. That's the worst problem with it. It will probably take several comments.
"Too bad Bro. Brandenburg that you have believed the lie that doulos means slave."
It's not a lie. It means slave. Here's what BDAG says, which is merely reporting on the usage of the word in the day it was used by Jesus and Paul.
"pert. to being under someone’s total control, slavish, servile, subject. . . male slave as an entity in a socioeconomic context, slave"
"You're not saying anything different than modern, corrupt bible versions when you espouse that."
Modern versions don't use the word, "slave," Danny. All modern versions use the word, "servant." They are the same as the King James Version on their translation.
""NO Christian is a slave! John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." v.36, "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." Do you think that's approving of slavery?" Do you think that means we're slaves to Christ? I'm not a SLAVE, I'm a SON (John 1:12)!"
Scripture doesn't contradict itself, which requires being careful so as not to be contradictory, which you are doing, Danny. In John 8, in the context, you are leaving out a key component. Someone who is truly free is no longer a slave to sin---John 8:34, "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." If someone isn't free, who is a servant of sin, then how is "servant" in John 8:34 not slavery? It becomes a contradiction for you.
John 1:12 doesn't say anything about not being a slave to, of, or for Christ. We're sons of God there, but that doesn't mean that we aren't slaves of Christ.
"This here from you is an example of very bad preaching that Thomas Ross ought to separate from. Where, pray tell, do you get your definition of it as slave? Not from the King James Bible!"
Very important to good preaching is knowing the meaning of words, and doulos means "slave." I can get that from the King James Bible too, even though it translates the word, "servant," the context of the usage of "servant" shows that "servant" is a "slave."
I'll come back to answer more of it, because I've got to take off for a bit.
Well, you did exactly as I suspected you would, and you ran to defend what you have to say with a modern critical text scholarship work of BDAG. At least you don't hide it that it is giving definitions of secular or otherwise non-Christian sources to be able to define what is in Biblical use. Tell me, do you do that regularly, going out to secular, non-Christian people and asking them to define something that they probably are bound to not understand correctly, especially in Christian use? Try asking them to define love! They'll basically give you the definition of lust instead of what we know love truly is. But, you are doing the same thing, just going to early classical non-Biblical "street" Greek so you can understand something in Biblical Greek text. Pretty unsafe and foolish!
You apparently have never checked modern versions! Eph. 6, which is what you are citing mainly in this post has "slaves" in vv. 5-6 in the NASV, NRSV (v.5 in RSV), NIV, CEV, et al. It would be good if you would do some research before putting an uninformed opinion out there since you are easily fact checked with that by anyone and shown to be absolutely wrong (Prov. 18:13). And, again, please have some respect for others when dealing with them--I already addressed you even here as Bro. Brandenberg. No one calls me by my first name only except my parents, grandmother, wife, and former Bible college president. So, please, stop the disrespect.
I plainly used John 1:12 to illustrate I am a son of God and that's all I was appealing to in citing that. Your claim my citation of John 8:32,36 in saying we are free is contradiction to v.34 is insufficient evidence. Get yourself off of your false mindset that "servant" in the KJB means "slave" and then you'll start understanding things more properly. Anyone committing sin is a servant to it willfully, their lusts and flesh drawing them to do so. To say someone is a slave to sin is leaning toward Calvinism and futility since people will get the wrong idea they can NEVER stop the sin since they are in a hopeless condition of slavery to it. You can stop it though through the power and victory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in you.
No, you cannot and should not get "slave" from the KJB's use of servant, that is if you'd stop reading it with your secularly biased viewpoint. The passage you cited, Eph. 6, says that the servant of Christ does the will of God from the heart. Slaves don't do the will of their master from the heart because they are forced to do so whether they like it or not. Just Eph. 6:6 shows that it SHOULD NOT be translated as slave there, whether by you or modern versions. Your reasoning is very messed up.
Danny,
Looking at this reference in Andrewes, it doesn't appear that he is making the point you're claiming. The distinction he makes between doulos and latris indicates his understanding that the former is "a servant of our own" (suggesting ownership, or at least bondedness, e.g. an indentured servant, which still carries with it the idea of unfree service) while the latter "is a hired servant," suggesting something more like a day labourer or the like. As such, between the two, a doulos is much closer to the idea of slavery, which is of course substantiated by pretty much the entirety of its use elsewhere in Greek, both in and out of the New Testament.
In any case, I'm not sure that this section in Andrewes' catechism is a strong source from which to be trying to draw an argument about this issue. The portion you cite touches on doulos incidentally, but is certainly not intended to be an in-depth or precise discussion of what that term means, as it is actually in the middle of a discussion about popish idolatry and addressing the arguments that papists make for idol worship.
"They obviously knew the difference since they used "slave" in Jer. 2:14 and Rev. 18:13, and that's it! Just twice!"
Jeremiah 2:14 is in italics in the King James, so it isn't translating a Hebrew word. It's a provided word. It's also explaining the word servant, by saying that it is a slave, which hurts your cause there. In addition, doulos isn't in the Old Testament, because it is written in Hebrew. That isn't "critical scholarship," by the way. In Revelation 18:13, it is the Greek word soma, which is the word for "body," translated "slave," because of how the apostates treat the people.
"Whose Greek prowess is better? These approximately 54 men who translated the KJB, going through every passage at least 14 times, at least so many of them being fluent in Greek as to talk to each other in Greek, or you, a guy so many centuries removed who most likely is following corrupt critical text scholarship who have defined Greek terms with secular meanings?"
Knowing the meaning of words isn't critical text scholarship, Danny, and I'm being very kind to you. I'm referring to the textus receptus when I say 127 uses. Just because the KJV translators used "servant" doesn't mean that it doesn't have the meaning of slave. And you are right that I don't go to an English dictionary to to understand what the words mean. I look how it is used, which isn't critical scholarship.
I ignored your next few insulting sentences.
"Preaching a person is a slave controverts the Baptist distinctive of soul liberty since slavery implies a person is completely divested of freedom and personal rights."
Soul liberty isn't liberty to make scripture mean whatever you want it to mean. It doesn't mean that you are free to do whatever you want to do. That isn't freedom.
"Not only are you not a KJB believer, you and not Baptistic."
I'm fine with both how KJV I am and how Baptist I am, and I know that what you are writing isn't Baptist, because it isn't biblical. It isn't how historical Baptists have believed.
"Did you know that Satanists and New Agers call Christians slaves, and that they instead are the free ones? Why are you using their terminology?"
Satanists and New Agers don't want to be slaves of Christ. I get it. They want complete freedom to do what they want, like what you are teaching. You have that in common with them.
Your position, where someone is saved without Jesus being Lord, and, therefore, someone not being a slave, which is what it is to be a servant of Christ, defies biblical repentance. Someone can remain in rebellion against Jesus Christ and be saved. I'm happy not to believe like you.
"Well, you did exactly as I suspected you would, and you ran to defend what you have to say with a modern critical text scholarship work of BDAG."
BDAG chronicles the usages of the word in scripture, in the Greek OT, and in history. That isn't "critical scholarship." The reason someone uses BDAG, which you call "running to use it," is because it is easier than looking all those usages up on your own. You don't have to do that work, because someone else has done it. If I did it, it would be the same usage.
"At least you don't hide it that it is giving definitions of secular or otherwise non-Christian sources to be able to define what is in Biblical use."
Biblical language was language used in the real world. Jesus didn't use words in a different way than how they were being used, except in rare instances, and you know when He did. Biblical prophecy is applied in the real world too, because God created the world. He used human authors. That isn't "secular."
"Tell me, do you do that regularly, going out to secular, non-Christian people and asking them to define something that they probably are bound to not understand correctly, especially in Christian use?"
When someone studies a word, he gives priority first to its use in the context, then in the book, then the testament, and then the other testament. He looks to literature outside of the Bible if he has a small sample size, like a hapax legemonon, which are many in the NT. I've noticed you look up the English word in Webster's 1828. There are a number of problems taking that approach. I could explain them, but I think it would fall on deaf ears.
"Try asking them to define love! They'll basically give you the definition of lust instead of what we know love truly is. But, you are doing the same thing, just going to early classical non-Biblical "street" Greek so you can understand something in Biblical Greek text. Pretty unsafe and foolish!"
What you are describing isn't what I do. I'm being very nice to you. You are being insulting.
"You apparently have never checked modern versions! Eph. 6, which is what you are citing mainly in this post has "slaves" in vv. 5-6 in the NASV, NRSV (v.5 in RSV), NIV, CEV, et al. It would be good if you would do some research before putting an uninformed opinion out there since you are easily fact checked with that by anyone and shown to be absolutely wrong (Prov. 18:13)."
Modern versions do not consistently translate doulos, slave, except, I believe, a very new Holman version. I shouldn't have used the word "no" because you take that as it doesn't happen at all. It's what I meant though. They translate it mostly "servant" just like the KJV.
"And, again, please have some respect for others when dealing with them--I already addressed you even here as Bro. Brandenberg. No one calls me by my first name only except my parents, grandmother, wife, and former Bible college president. So, please, stop the disrespect."
Mr. Foss. My name is Brandenburg. And I haven't talked to many people as disrespectful as you. I didn't call you Danny out of disrespect. Most people here call me, Kent. Like, Paul, John, James, etc. You actually are very disrespectful. Look at the previous sentences in your paragraph. I've been extremely respectful of you here, and almost anyone reading here would know that. However, I'm going to call you, Mr. Foss from now on. How old are you? I'm 57, Mr. Foss. Are you entreating my as a father or rebuking me?
"I plainly used John 1:12 to illustrate I am a son of God and that's all I was appealing to in citing that. Your claim my citation of John 8:32,36 in saying we are free is contradiction to v.34 is insufficient evidence."
I'll let what I wrote stand, and that you won't answer seems normal to me from you.
"Get yourself off of your false mindset that "servant" in the KJB means "slave" and then you'll start understanding things more properly. Anyone committing sin is a servant to it willfully, their lusts and flesh drawing them to do so."
When you say that someone is a servant to sin, you are saying that he can stop sinning on his own? He's not actually in bondage to it? I'm interested in this unique kind of "servant to sin" that is not bondage like a slave, which is what the word doulos means.
"To say someone is a slave to sin is leaning toward Calvinism and futility since people will get the wrong idea they can NEVER stop the sin since they are in a hopeless condition of slavery to it."
They can't stop sinning, that's what bondage means. They continue in sin, because the seed does not remain in them.
Read about Pelagianism, because you read like a Pelagian. It is not a biblical view of the nature of sin. Someone who is a servant of sin, isn't just doing sinful acts out of his will, but he is in bondage to the corruption and can't escape it except by the grace of God.
"You can stop it though through the power and victory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in you."
It's good to know that you think someone can stop.
"No, you cannot and should not get "slave" from the KJB's use of servant, that is if you'd stop reading it with your secularly biased viewpoint."
You can get it from the English too. I don't know that I'll write on it, but you can easily.
"The passage you cited, Eph. 6, says that the servant of Christ does the will of God from the heart. Slaves don't do the will of their master from the heart because they are forced to do so whether they like it or not. Just Eph. 6:6 shows that it SHOULD NOT be translated as slave there, whether by you or modern versions. Your reasoning is very messed up."
Doulos means slave. That's what a servant is in the NT. It isn't a British butler, like a modern employee. This is a person who has given up his life, what is the description of the slave. He is not his own. He is bought with a price. His body and spirit are God's.
1 Corinthians 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
Mr. Foss,
I am curious what you think people who make English dictionaries do when they create definitions of words that is different from what BDAG did. While I am not asking about the character of the authors of the dictionaries, but what they do, I would also be interested in knowing if you reject all English dictionaries made by unconverted people, and, if so, what percentage of the time these evil English dictionaries say words mean something radically different from the few English dictionaries which we are allowed to use.
Thanks. I don’t have time for a discussion, but I would be interested in your answers if they are serious and intellectually credible.
Kent,
I never would have guess you were fifty-seven, but it explains a few things...
I agree with this article.
What you say here is an interesting contrast to what you state in the last two paragraphs or so of this blog post from 2015 (https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/12/fundamental-stupidity.html). There you state that the primacy of the Gospel does not stop you from opposing what you view as lesser and derivative evils such as "progressive taxation" and "affirmative action". Yet here you dismiss the legacy of American racial slavery as mere "distraction". Is it because you believe its an issue that's past due to its abolition in the 19th Century? In that case, would you have been in favour of the 13th to 15th Amendments which abolished slavery and then made freedmen equal citizens of this country?
Danny Foss,
Isn't the point of Philemon that Paul required Onesimus to go back to Philemon because Onesimus was owned by Philemon as a slave? If he was just a modern servant and not a slave, what is Philemon verse 16 talking about?
Also, are servants or slaves "bought with a price"? (I Corinthians 7:23) I think we all recognize that a servant that is bought is actually a slave.
You do not need a modern dictionary or Greek dictionary to know the the word "servant" in the King James Bible means "slave" in its ordinary usage.
Terry,
Did you think I was older? I looked old when I was young. Anyway, hopefully whatever it is that you understand better is a good thing. Good to see you.
Horace,
That is amazing memory. Paul dealt with things other than the gospel, but the gospel has got to be emphasis, the main thing, and I went and read the post you showed in your comment, and I agreed with it.
There is no slavery in our culture, so there isn't anything to deal with, but Jesus and Paul didn't try to stop it. They did require Christians to regulate it though. I think the legacy of slavery is a distraction. It doesn't exist. Move on. But I didn't really deal with that in this post.
I favor outlawing chattel slavery. I don't think I would support the fourteenth amendment as it stands and how it has been applied. It has been used to undermine freedom, by the federal government regulating private businesses and then also states according to a liberal interpretation of depriving a person. I favor not prohibiting a vote based upon race.
So why didn't Jesus or Paul try to stop slavery, Horace?
Gary,
I agree with what you wrote. I hope you are well. Good to see you.
I wanted to mention a couple of things, even though I am not a saved person I was in a Baptist Church for several years, I think that what I am about to say needs to be said.
First, if someone wants to study Hebrew and Greek because they want to that's fine. However, why are we going back to the Hebrew and Greek as though it were necessary to understand the underlying meaning of words used in English? We have the King James Bible in English for English speakers so it's not necessary. God doesn't keep secrets and God is perfectly capable of saying what he means in any language, including English (he did create all of the languages). I have enough faith that God says what he means in the King James Bible without having to resort to Hebrew and Greek. For people who do believe that you need the Hebrew and the Greek why don't they teach children in Christian schools to speak the languages fluently? Why aren't Christian adults making a diligent effort to learn to speak the languages fluently (what happens if you're not good at picking up languages)? It's because it's not necessary. Christians and seekers of God should be 100% confident that they have the word of God to study without adding anything extra. Also, isn't it insulting to God? "Thanks for the Bible in English but I still need to go back to the original languages to really find out what words and phrases mean" that also undermines all of the hard diligent work that the Bible translators did with the King James Bible and says that the King James Bible is a huge step removed from the Hebrew and Greek.
Second, in regard to slavery human trafficking is the wrong kind of slavery and it is still happening today. There needs to be compassion for others and Jesus certainly taught that. I reached out to women in prostitution and strip clubs, where this sort of thing does go on, to give them the gospel and to offer a helping hand if they want to leave. How are they supposed to hear the gospel preached when they are being abused and they are being controlled by pimps? Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. I agree that the anti-trafficking movement has so much wrong with their thinking that they can abolish slavery because it's not going to happen. Many of those same groups that profess Christianity don't even preach the gospel or they preach a false gospel to the people they are reaching out to. There needs to be a better explanation about slavery in the Bible because so many people don't understand it.
Carly,
God gave the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. We're not closed off from the original language of scripture. Men understood it to translate it into English or we wouldn't have an English translation. The original languages are brought into the NT, when Jesus says, jot and tittle, which are Hebrew letters in Matthew 5. This is not to say that everyone has to learn the Hebrew and Greek. Translations can be depended upon, even as seen in the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, using a different language. However, the people responsible should work, be a workman not ashamed, in rightly dividing the word of truth.
It's easy to refute human trafficking of any kind, especially a sex type. I don't of anyone that would say that the Bible isn't clear about that.
Danny Foss,
This is a message for you, since you're probably looking for your comments. I'm not going to post any more of your comments. There has only been one person we have done this with, so far in over a decade, and you will be the second. It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you about any subject. I read all the comments you just wrote, and that is obvious, that it is impossible. Since someone can't comment back to you in a reasonable, even charitable way, to have a discussion about the Bible on any subject where there is disagreement, I'm not going to allow you to comment on the blog.
Post a Comment