The Moral Failings of Christianity - Slavery

[John Dibble]

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America


Continuing the series, the next topic of discussion will be slavery. As someone who values personal liberty and human dignity quite highly, I find slavery to be a moral abomination because it is a practice that is in complete contradiction to those values.

Slavery occurs in the Bible and has been prevelant in many Christian societies throughout history. In multiple places the Bible recognizes slavery and regulates it, indicating that it was to be seen as a legitimate institution.

In fact, even in the New Testament slavery is recognized as an institution that believers are allowed to practice:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly some protections were given to slaves in the regulatory rules, (for instance Exodus 21:20 makes it clear that killing a slave is forbidden, though Exodus 21:21 still makes it clear that the slave is property and can be beaten by the master) but that it was practiced at all in a society that worships a being that is supposed to be morally perfect is absurd if you consider slavery to be an immoral practice. One would expect a moral being to outright condemn it, but no such condemnation occurs anywhere in the Bible.

Everywhere else in the Bible if something is to be condemned as sinful and immoral, it is explicityly condemned. Murder, theft, adultery, and idoltry are all condemned in the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality and witchcraft are both things that the Bible has explicit rules against and for which the penalty is death! Again, while there are rules in regards to how to conduct slavery the fact is that the practice is recognized as something that is to be allowed. Why punish other sins but not this one? The rather obvious answer is that the Christian God doesn't regard the practice of slavery as immoral.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.......Slavery.

I'm not sure about everything with this issue, but from what I've heard, slavery back then was nothing like slavery in the South in the 1800's. From what I've heard, you went into someone's service in order to repay a debt and were considered a slave until the debt was paid. It wasn't like the Deep South where you had the Cotton and Tobacco plantations and the 300 slaves out in the fields farming while the master was in the big house.

[John Dibble]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.......Slavery.

I'm not sure about everything with this issue, but from what I've heard, slavery back then was nothing like slavery in the South in the 1800's. From what I've heard, you went into someone's service in order to repay a debt and were considered a slave until the debt was paid. It wasn't like the Deep South where you had the Cotton and Tobacco plantations and the 300 slaves out in the fields farming while the master was in the big house.

Yes, slavery was different then. As I mentioned the Bible has many regulations in regards to how slavery is to be conducted, and permanent slavery is included. It largely depended on whether you were Hebrew and male, plus a few other conditions.

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever."  (Exodus 21:2-6)

(I find this passage particularly damning, as it essentially is holding someone's family hostage - can you imagine having to choose between freedom and being able to be with your family?)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."  (Exodus 21:7-11)

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."  (Leviticus 25:44-46)


I do suggest that you actually take the time to read your Bible and familiarize yourself with the contents.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It took a while to get past Genesis...and I'm kind of tied up in Atlas Shrugged...

Now I know what one of my teachers was referring to when he said that Atheists work harder at familiarizing themselves with the Bible than Christians just so they can try to disprove it...

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I've also noticed that depite quoting Timothy, you've reffered the most to the Old Testament (which brings us back to topic #1), when slavery was common place in many cultures.

[John Dibble]

It took a while to get past Genesis...and I'm kind of tied up in Atlas Shrugged...

Now I know what one of my teachers was referring to when he said that Atheists work harder at familiarizing themselves with the Bible than Christians just so they can try to disprove it...

It's actually surprising how many Christians haven't actually read the whole Bible. They only know what they are told in church. I would think that if their faith was actually important to them they'd want to know as much about it as possible, and the easiest way to do that is to read scripture, and yet they don't.

EDIT - Also, I should note that some atheists are very familiar with the Bible because they were Christians and ceased to be so after they read it.

I've also noticed that depite quoting Timothy, you've reffered the most to the Old Testament (which brings us back to topic #1), when slavery was common place in many cultures.

Well, I didn't want to post every quote on slavery as that would take quite a while. The OT has more specific things to say in regards to who you can enslave, how long you can enslave them, and how you can treat them, etc. The NT speaks more generally in terms of how slaves should behave ("Slaves, obey your masters", etc.) so it wasn't really relevant to the last point. I suspect that this is because at the time the NT was written slavery was regulated and practiced under Roman laws, whereas during the OT the Israelites weren't really ruled over by other groups and thus had a need to write their own guidelines.

[useful idiot]

Why is slavery "morally" wrong?

[??????????]

Why is slavery "morally" wrong?

True, individualism isn't really propped up by the bible.

[John Dibble]

Why is slavery "morally" wrong?

Why is child rape "morally" wrong?

[tpfkaw]

Why is slavery "morally" wrong?

Would you like to be enslaved?

That's not a terribly excellent argument.  You could just as easily ask "would you like to live in a Manhattan penthouse and have sex with supermodels every day?"

[useful idiot]

Why is slavery "morally" wrong?

Why is child rape "morally" wrong?

Because it contravenes God's will....

If that's your argument though, that things are true/untrue or right/wrong because a large number of people feel that way on a gut level, then you're standing on some shaky ground. If we're going to use that logic, then you could make the case that slavery wasn't wrong when it was socially acceptable, but it is now.

Even in this instance, the Bible never explicitly endorses slavery.

[Beet]

I've always used the word 'moral' and right/wrong in a secular sense, and the fact of the matter is that most people do too. It's not that I'm making an argument that things are right/wrong or true/untrue because a large number of people feel that way on a gut level, but it does happen to be the case that when most people use those terms that's what they mean. At least around here. Perhaps it's different in your little corner of Virginia? From a practical standpoint it's a matter of semantics.

[??????????]

Even in this instance, the Bible never explicitly endorses slavery.

I think this site sums it up nicely : http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

To call what the ancients did "slavery" by our modern standards is a little disingenuous. A more accurate and modern term would of course be indentured servitude. If someone is willing to give up their freedom, of their own accord, to preform a task or service I really can't complain or call it evil. It would definitely fall under the individuals free will.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble, you can't understand a subject unless you trace it through the bible, starting with the first reference and following it through the bible to see how the concept developed.

do you even know at what point of scripture the concept of slavery entered the picture?

[John Dibble]

Why is slavery "morally" wrong?

Would you like to be enslaved?

That's not a terribly excellent argument.  You could just as easily ask "would you like to live in a Manhattan penthouse and have sex with supermodels every day?"

Got to it before I changed it, eh? Well, I was about to go to bed so I just wanted to make a brief "golden rule" argument. Nobody really wants to be enslaved, and I think it's a sufficiently bad thing to do to a person to consider it "wrong".

Why is slavery "morally" wrong?

Why is child rape "morally" wrong?

Because it contravenes God's will....

If that's your argument though, that things are true/untrue or right/wrong because a large number of people feel that way on a gut level, then you're standing on some shaky ground. If we're going to use that logic, then you could make the case that slavery wasn't wrong when it was socially acceptable, but it is now.

See above.

Besides, are you seriously arguing that we as a society should accept slavery as a legitimate institution? Do I really need to explain to you, a modern human being, why we should find it wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It does however explicitly allow it.

Even in this instance, the Bible never explicitly endorses slavery.

I think this site sums it up nicely : http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

To call what the ancients did "slavery" by our modern standards is a little disingenuous. A more accurate and modern term would of course be indentured servitude. If someone is willing to give up their freedom, of their own accord, to preform a task or service I really can't complain or call it evil. It would definitely fall under the individuals free will.

I already posted Bible passages that are in blatant contradiction to this notion. Exodus 21:2-6 indicates that a master can basically hold a man's family from him in order to coerce him to stay on as a slave. It also indicates that the children are born into permanent slavery. Exodus 21:7-11 indicates that a woman is a permanent slave, and that they are sold rather than choosing to do so of their own free will. Exodus 21:20-21 explicitly states that the slave is property. Leviticus 25:44-46 states that non-Hebrew slaves are permanent slaves that can be bought and sold. In Numbers 31 the virgin girls of the Midianites are all forcibly captured and kept by the Israelites after they slaughter every male and non-virgin woman. Judges 5:30 also shows us another instance of women being forcibly taken.

How can you not call that slavery? Yes, debt slavery also existed, but if we're to believe the Biblical rules were ever followed then you have to concede that true slavery took place.

And yeah, they lived in ancient times. But you forget - we're supposed to believe that they had a perfectly moral, enlightened god guiding them and talking to them. You don't find it the least bit odd that such a being would allow such practices?

Dibble, you can't understand a subject unless you trace it through the bible, starting with the first reference and following it through the bible to see how the concept developed.

do you even know at what point of scripture the concept of slavery entered the picture?

Genesis 9:18-25

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct?

Apparently seeing your dad naked, not covering him up, and telling your brothers is justification for enslavement.

Seriously, "how it developed" is not an argument for the morality of it. It's still one of the worst things humanity has ever practiced as far as I'm concerned. You may as well be arguing that rape is justified by context.

[afleitch]

Why is slavery "morally" wrong?

Why is child rape "morally" wrong?

Because it contravenes God's will....

Really?

In his wanton destruction of the Midianites God said "only the young girls who are virgins may live, you may keep them for yourselves." How old do you think these young girls were? Why does Numbers 31:7-18 in detail describe the murder of each section of the community until the 'young girl virgins' were left to be taken away as spoils? Can you even use your imagination just a little to think what the men were allowed to do once they 'kept them'? And as for victims of rape, such as the woman described in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 they were to be stoned to death.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble, you can't understand a subject unless you trace it through the bible, starting with the first reference and following it through the bible to see how the concept developed.

do you even know at what point of scripture the concept of slavery entered the picture?

Genesis 9:18-25
Correct?

No, that is not correct, the concept precedes Gen 9.  You’ll have to go further back.[/quote]

---

Apparently seeing your dad naked, not covering him up, and telling your brothers is justification for enslavement.

nor is your interpretation of Ham’s sin correct, for Ham had the opportunity to cover someone else’s sin and keep it discreet.  Instead, he chose to gaze upon it and gossip about it.

---

Seriously, "how it developed" is not an argument for the morality of it. It's still one of the worst things humanity has ever practiced as far as I'm concerned. You may as well be arguing that rape is justified by context.

Why don’t you simply attempt to take it from the beginning (at point you have yet to reach), understand the significance of it, understand the instructions toward it and whom it applies to, then judge for yourself?  So far, the only thing you have done is judge.

[John Dibble]

No, that is not correct, the concept precedes Gen 9.  You’ll have to go further back.

That's where the word slavery first appears, so if that's not good enough then tell me where it is and explain why you think it's the origin of the concept. It isn't my job to make your argument for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

nor is your interpretation of Ham’s sin correct, for Ham had the opportunity to cover someone else’s sin and keep it discreet.  Instead, he chose to gaze upon it and gossip about it.[/quote]

And how exactly does that justify enslaving him to his brothers?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why don’t you simply attempt to take it from the beginning (at point you have yet to reach), understand the significance of it, understand the instructions toward it and whom it applies to, then judge for yourself?  So far, the only thing you have done is judge.[/quote]

Yes, I'm making a moral judgment - I find slavery to be an abominable practice. It's degrading to human dignity and contrary to liberty. Thus far you've not presented a case as to why I should think otherwise.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, that is not correct, the concept precedes Gen 9.  You’ll have to go further back.

That's where the word slavery first appears, so if that's not good enough then tell me where it is and explain why you think it's the origin of the concept. It isn't my job to make your argument for you.

Is it your job to hack up a subject and put forth a half-baked argument?  Any judicial process reviews the beginning of a problem.  You talked earlier about Christians supposedly using the NT to change the context of the OT, yet here you are not establishing the meaning the slavery.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

nor is your interpretation of Ham’s sin correct, for Ham had the opportunity to cover someone else’s sin and keep it discreet.  Instead, he chose to gaze upon it and gossip about it.

And how exactly does that justify enslaving him to his brothers?[/quote]

Noah didn’t have the power to enslave Ham, Ham was already enslaved by what had mastered him.  Noah was simply explaining what Ham had already put into motion.  His brothers didn’t fall into the same sin and therefore were not enslaved. 

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why don’t you simply attempt to take it from the beginning (at point you have yet to reach), understand the significance of it, understand the instructions toward it and whom it applies to, then judge for yourself?  So far, the only thing you have done is judge.

Yes, I'm making a moral judgment - I find slavery to be an abominable practice. It's degrading to human dignity and contrary to liberty. Thus far you've not presented a case as to why I should think otherwise.
[/quote]

But you’re judging without knowledge of the subject matter.  Every time I’ve expounded upon a nonPC area in scripture, you’ve agreed with my interpretation.  So why do you ignore the countless times I’ve explained that the only way to understand a subject matter in scripture is to begin with the first reference of a subject matter in scripture and trace the subject through the scripture to see where it fits?  And, I’ve also explained that Genesis is the blueprint for the rest of the bible, yet your argument didn’t even begin in Genesis, nor are you aware of the first mention of slavery in the bible.  You’re not even at the novice level of understanding the subject.

[John Dibble]

No, that is not correct, the concept precedes Gen 9.  You’ll have to go further back.

That's where the word slavery first appears, so if that's not good enough then tell me where it is and explain why you think it's the origin of the concept. It isn't my job to make your argument for you.

Is it your job to hack up a subject and put forth a half-baked argument?  Any judicial process reviews the beginning of a problem.  You talked earlier about Christians supposedly using the NT to change the context of the OT, yet here you are not establishing the meaning the slavery.

Weak. Very, very weak. You claim my argument is half-baked, but what substance have you provided to assert that? None. Thus far you've just asserted it without explaining anything. A judicial process involves people on both sides making argument - it's not the job of the prosecutor to make the defense's argument for them.

Noah didn’t have the power to enslave Ham, Ham was already enslaved by what had mastered him.  Noah was simply explaining what Ham had already put into motion.  His brothers didn’t fall into the same sin and therefore were not enslaved.

This isn't just some metaphorical thing - he literally said he was enslaved TO his brothers. Not to sin, but TO HIS BROTHERS. This is a case where he's literally telling him he's cursed and now has to be his brothers' slave. Is that not what is written? This is EXACTLY what I was talking about - you are using symbolism as a shield, hiding from the real world consequences.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. You haven't explained this one.
2. Just because I have agreed with you in the past does necessarily not mean I'd agree this time.
3. Just because I agree that your interpretation of the Bible is the intended one does not mean I must agree that what is presented is justified. That you act as if I should is ridiculous.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so, does this mean you're not even willing to read the first 8 chapters of Genesis in order to find to first instance of slavery?

[John Dibble]

so, does this mean you're not even willing to read the first 8 chapters of Genesis in order to find to first instance of slavery?

Again, the actual concept of slavery first comes up in Genesis 9 by all appearances. I read through Genesis 1-8 as soon as you told me that it wasn't. I still don't see it. The only thing that I think might qualify is God's punishment to Eve for tempting Adam in Genesis 3 where he has man ruling over her, though this seems to me to be about the Biblical model of marriage rather than explicitly being slavery.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so, does this mean you're not even willing to read the first 8 chapters of Genesis in order to find to first instance of slavery?

Again, the actual concept of slavery first comes up in Genesis 9 by all appearances. I read through Genesis 1-8 as soon as you told me that it wasn't. I still don't see it. The only thing that I think might qualify is God's punishment to Eve for tempting Adam in Genesis 3 where he has man ruling over her, though this seems to me to be about the Biblical model of marriage rather than explicitly being slavery.

1)   Adam was supposed to be the ruler of this world, yet lost that privilege when he fell under a curse due to sin.  As a result, Satan became the ruler of the earth. Sin was the agent that toppled Adam and made him a slave.
2)   Eve was put under Adam’s authority as a result of her sin.
3)   Cain (Gen ch 4) was warned that sin wanted to rule over him, but that Cain must “master” sin.  

So, either we overcome sin, or we become slaves to sin.  It’s a universal spiritual law.

And the judgment of this law is AUTOMATICALLY triggered, it does NOT require a verdict to be rendered: Gen 2:17 “for when you eat from it you will certainly die”. This is why Noah did NOT condemn Ham to slavery; rather Ham’s own action condemned him to slavery.  Noah simply was relaying what Ham already put into motion.  

So, slavery is bound to the concept of sin in the bible and has ETERNAL consequences, and God hated slavery to sin so much, he gave his only begotten son to rescue his people from the slavery of sin, therefore, no believer can take another believer as a slave (see Lev 25:39,42,44 Dt 24:7; 1Cor 7:23;Philemon).

And since purchasing slaves is condemned in the NT (1Tim 1:8 ), you’re basically left with arguing the morality of converts to Christianity who retain their unbelieving slaves, though they are ordered to treat them in a fair and right manner (Col 4:1).

[John Dibble]

NOTE - I'm going to be posting or linking any quotes I reference as a courtesy that haven't already been used so that people don't have to look them up. Not everyone has them down to memory, after all.

1)   Adam was supposed to be the ruler of this world, yet lost that privilege when he fell under a curse due to sin.  As a result, Satan became the ruler of the earth. Sin was the agent that toppled Adam and made him a slave.
2)   Eve was put under Adam’s authority as a result of her sin.
3)   Cain (Gen ch 4) was warned that sin wanted to rule over him, but that Cain must “master” sin. 

So, either we overcome sin, or we become slaves to sin.  It’s a universal spiritual law.

Ok... for the sake of argument let's say I agree with the premise. How exactly does that make humans enslaving one another justified? I mean seriously, if this enslavement is a bad thing then how exactly is more enslavement justifiable? It would seem to me that less enslavement would be preferable

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, how does Ham's enslavement to his sin justify his enslavement to his brothers? Also Noah's drunkenness was also a sin based on your earlier statement, so why isn't he getting enslaved as well? Isn't a sin a sin? Why the unequal punishment?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, first off Exodus 21:2-6 which I posted earlier contradicts this to some degree. Believers could be enslaved through debt slavery for six years, and could be permanently enslaved in certain circumstances if they chose not to abandon their wife and children. (Again, this to me is akin to taking hostages in order to keep a slave) Also, again Exodus 21:7-11 indicates that believing women could be sold as slaves as well.

Lev 25:39,42 merely stipulates that when they do become debt slaves that they are to be treated better than regular slaves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dt 24:7 only states that kidnapping a fellow believer to make them a slave is a crime. But again, as demonstrated in Exodus 21 there were lawful means of making them slaves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1Cor 7:23 states nothing about whether or not a believer is allowed to buy slaves of any set of beliefs or not. It only says that a believer should not become a slave if they are not one already. (surrounding passages indicate it's fine for a believer to remain a slave if they are already one)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But again for the sake of argument let's say that with or without the above things noted I agreed with your premise that believers aren't allowed to enslave other believers. Is that somehow supposed to make the enslavement of non-believers less bad?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1Tim 1:8 (actually it's 10) condemns slave traders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as I know, this is the only place in the Bible where slave traders are condemned. I have an objection to this argument.

This is seemingly coming from Paul alone. In fact, all the NT passages you've references about slavery in this thread thus far have come from the Pauline epistles. As I stated, I'm not aware of any other passages that say that slave traders are bad. How then can we be sure this isn't just Paul's opinion on the matter?

You made this statement in the past:

I formulate no doctrine unless there are two or three witnesses in scripture saying the same, otherwise I could end up off on a tangent and baptizing people for the dead like the Mormons do.

Now, call me crazy, but it seems we have only one witness to this doctrine - Paul. Paul is certainly a major Christian figure, but he isn't God. Not only that, he wasn't one of the original twelve apostles, and was not directly preached to by Jesus.

So here's what we have:
1. There was legal slave trade among the Israelites, who were God's chosen people who were supposedly following his holy laws - laws which regulated that trade.
2. In the Gospels written by the apostles there is no condemnation of slave traders, at least as far as I can tell.
3. Paul condemns slave traders.

So, we have a blatant allowance of the slave trade in case 1 that appears in multiple books, no stance in case 2 (which I think you would agree is a very important case), and a condemnation in only one place by only one witness in case 3. This is problematic for your argument that slave traders are condemned as being bad if there's only one man as witness.

However, let me actually shed some light on the matter. A little research reveals that while NIV (the one I've primarily been using) and some other translations use the words "slave traders" others use the words "menstealers" or "kidnappers". (Here's a list with many different translations of the passage.)

So this leaves us with two options to consider:
1. This is a translation error in some translations, and "slave traders" here refers only to those that kidnap fellow citizens/believers and sell them as slaves. This would be consistent with Dt 24:7, and thus the requirement for two witnesses is satisfied. (I'm not an expert in Greek, so I can't say for certain - maybe afleitch could shed some light on it, as I remember he's versed in the subject.) However, this leaves law-abiding slave traders in the clear, as far as slave trading goes anyways.
2. We accept the translation of "slave traders" to refer to even the ones that practiced it as prescribed by the law but have to accept that this is not supported by more than one witness, and by your own methods of determining doctrine is doctrine on shaky ground at best. (unless of course you have another witness you wish to present)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble:

I)   Slavery in the bible is clearly tied from the very beginning of Genesis to being a slave to sin, hence God’s people were NOT to be slaves because God’s people were not to be mastered by sin.  Slavery has always had figurative meaning.  (though, as you pointed out, God’s people could agree to be slaves by their own free will for up to seven years, again another figurative lesson that God's people only return to being slaves to sin by their own free will, but even if so, God still provides a means to become free once again)

Since the literal practice of slavery had figurative meaning, the lesson in regards to eternity outweighs any temporary “unfairness” in regard to nonbelievers, just as the destruction of ungodly nations being a lesson to avoid eternal punishment infinitely outweighs the temporary “injustice”.  God simply chose to temporarily forsake some heathen on this earth in order to provide lessons for God’s people to avoid an infinitely worse eternal punishment.  The eternal value outweighs the temporal costs; therefore I find your objections to be trivial and backward.

II)   As far as the three witnesses necessary to form a doctrine, we have DOZENS upon DOZENS of verses to choose from to establish the that slavery is abolished in the NT:

1)   First, is the acknowledgement that even in the OT, slavery had symbolic lessons from the beginning of Genesis.

2)   The symbolism is continued in the NT (note, since the symbolism already existed in the OT, the NT doesn’t need to sugar coat it or change context), and a SOLUTION is presented:

John 8:34 “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”

3)    Now that the SOLUTION to slavery to sin has come, the literal institution of slavery that served as a symbolic lesson is itself abolished:

Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Col 3:11 “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

Which is why Philemon was told to free his slave Onesimus:

Philemon 1:15 “Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.”

So, if you’re going to argue that the NT still considers the literal institution of slavery to be valid for Christians, then you’re going to have to argue Christians are still to segregate Jews and Gentiles.  Those temporal barriers, though also literal at the time, were for the purposes of symbolism to teach eternal lessons, but those barriers are now destroyed by Christ’s death.

To continue to regard another person as your slave is directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus:

Mark 10:42 “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”