What position does the Bible take on the issue of Slavery?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Lets go

[The Mikado]

This isn't even really a hard question at all. The Bible's various parts are all written in societies (ancient Judah or the Persian province of Judea for the Old Testament, the Roman province of Palestine or wherever St Paul happened to be that day for the New Testament) that were societies where slavery was part of life.

It's a bit like asking if a cookbook is "pro-carnivore" because it includes a recipe for Swedish meatballs. It's not "pro" anything, it reflects a society where slavery existed and was a common everyday part of life.

Worth pointing out that both Testaments reflect, obviously, that you don't WANT to be a slave. Moses leading the Israelites out of slavery is the obvious example, but also the very presence of the Jubilee laws making Old Testament slavery a timed thing and not an indefinite status is significant. Also, like all ancient societies, the Old Testament makes a lot of distinctions between treatment of Israelite slaves and foreigner slaves, as you'd expect.

Worth pointing out regarding the New Testament the letter to Philemon in which St Paul writes to Philemon about his runaway slave Onesimus, who has joined Paul, converted, mastered the Gospel, and is now being sent back to Philemon, not as a slave but as a bishop of their community. Paul is clearly not rejecting slavery as an institution (it'd be impossible to imagine doing so in a society like the Roman Empire that would literally be impossible to sustain without incredible amounts of slavery) but Paul is rejecting the idea that his buddy Onesimus should be put back in chains.

I'm sure people have some verses they'd love to point out, of course.

("Slaves obey your masters" in three...two...one...)

[Benjamin Frank]

This question gets at the notion of 'the Arc of the Moral Universe is Long but it Bends Toward Justice.'

Is there really any reason to believe that humans today are more moral or ethical individually than previously? I don't think so.

The reason for any greater morality collectively now than then is because (western) society is much wealthier. Greater wealth provides for greater choices. In economics, this is referred to as shifting to the right the 'production possibilities frontier' (curve.) I.E, with more wealth you can have more of both guns and butter.

Many if not most slaves back in Roman times were captured prisoners of war. To be sure, the Romans also enslaved people from defeated nations, but still, they were Roman enemies.

The Romans did not have the wealth to imprison the captured prisoners of war and other enemies of the state as is done by wealthier societies, so the choice then was either 'farm out' management of those captured to wealthy Romans who could control them or put them to death. The morally superior choice at that time was slavery.

The purpose of the Bible on this was to essentially codify ethical treatment of slaves, which was the most moral possibility available then. Condemning slavery as an evil institution at that time was in no way realistic. Of course, the Bible could have condemned war and conquering other nations, but given that the O.T God seemed to support war, that wasn't very realistic either.

Of course, modern slavery in America is the private prison system, but that's another matter.

[DaleCooper]

It's a mix between neutral and outright pro-slavery.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lincoln and Harriet Tubman was called Moses because the Jews were freed from Pharoahs and Dixiecrats used slavery to mean if you weren't born free you will be a slave that's two different interpretation, just like the life of Jesus is historical fact but before Jesus was born not Old Testament the virgin birth and Resurrection can be described as a Dream and Revelations was a Dream of Disciple John whom was near Death when he was poisoned you shouldn't take everything literally

Just like Biden isn't truely at 41 percentage pts if we won WI by 11

If Jews were freed from Pharoahs then blks can be freed and Jews were slaves to Romans, Jews were crucified

[Vice President Christian Man]

It's anti on a whole but commands that people treat their slaves fair in places where it is legal.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As I stated earlier, Jefferson and Dixiecrats used it if blks weren't born free they are a slave and Jews were clearly slaves of the Romans whom were crucified and Pharoahs whom killed the first born but Jews were white so pr slavery not abolitionist interpreted that as white Christian Nationakist that only Jews should be free to allow women not to vote and blks to be slaves but abolitionist like Lincoln and Harriet Tubman said it was for everyone to be free

[RINO Tom]

It's a mix between neutral and outright pro-slavery.

The Bible was written - wait for it - within the context of its time.  “Pro-slavery” is not really an applicable term.

[DaleCooper]

It's a mix between neutral and outright pro-slavery.

The Bible was written - wait for it - within the context of its time.  “Pro-slavery” is not really an applicable term.

The Bible is full of incredibly radical passages given the context of its time, but at no point is slavery condemned in the New Testament. In fact, it actually prescribes proper behavior for slaves and masters. It is a disappointing moral failing from a text that was otherwise way ahead of its time.

[Skill and Chance]

It's a mix between neutral and outright pro-slavery.

The Bible was written - wait for it - within the context of its time.  “Pro-slavery” is not really an applicable term.

The Bible is full of incredibly radical passages given the context of its time, but at no point is slavery condemned in the New Testament. In fact, it actually prescribes proper behavior for slaves and masters. It is a disappointing moral failing from a text that was otherwise way ahead of its time.

I think this can be explained in the context of several other passages where Jesus and the Disciples keep emphasizing over and over again that no, we really aren't trying to overthrow Rome!!!  Calling directly for immediate abolition of slavery in the 1st century AD context = calling for a civil war against the Roman Emperor.

[DaleCooper]

It's a mix between neutral and outright pro-slavery.

The Bible was written - wait for it - within the context of its time.  “Pro-slavery” is not really an applicable term.

The Bible is full of incredibly radical passages given the context of its time, but at no point is slavery condemned in the New Testament. In fact, it actually prescribes proper behavior for slaves and masters. It is a disappointing moral failing from a text that was otherwise way ahead of its time.

I think this can be explained in the context of several other passages where Jesus and the Disciples keep emphasizing over and over again that no, we really aren't trying to overthrow Rome!  Calling directly for abolition of slavery in the 1st century AD context = calling for a civil war against the Roman Emperor.

You're absolutely right. Christianity was never supposed to be a political movement, which is something that the Evangelicals of the US don't understand. But what I am saying is that Jesus and early Christians did take incredibly radical positions on many issues. Anti-sacrifice, anti-idolatry, anti-death penalty, advocating for charity to the point of complete selflessness, anti-divorce, anti-polygamy, and arguably even explicit condemnation of self-defense. I think anti-slavery would've fit in with all those other radical positions so it's kind of a shame that it wasn't there.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's a mix between neutral and outright pro-slavery.

The Bible was written - wait for it - within the context of its time.  “Pro-slavery” is not really an applicable term.

Everyone had slaves during that time even King David had Slaves and Jefferson said if you weren't born free you are always a slaves and certainly Moses was a slaves of Pharoahs and Jesus was a slaves of Romans but they were white and Lincoln and Whigs inEngland Queen Victoria applied it to everyone

[Georg Ebner]

For us mythical people (reaching from StoneAge to MiddleAges), who take the natural order into account, the father and the pater patriae are symbols of the DIVine. (Thus the AT's command to adore father&mother stands on top of the second - intramundan - table, parallel to the one on the top of the first - supramundan - table about adoring GOD.)
What means, that we are per se slaves of a monArchus solutus a legibus ("he doule tou kyriou", as B.V.MARY responded to the angel), who have no right to flee ourselves our slavery. But as our master has in HIS endless graciousness decided to make us HIS brothers, a Christian master cannot act differently.