Some Questions I Received: (1) What about those who haven't heard? and (2) What about the plagues in Egypt?

Questions I received...

 

1.    “Only way to heaven is through accepting Christ, so what happens to civilizations that never had a shot at that?”

 

2.    “What’s up with God sending the plagues in Egypt?  Maybe Old Testament is below the belt territory, but children died in that right?”

 

 

These are great questions and, no, the Old Testament isn’t “below the belt territory.”  I’ll give these my best shot.  Let me start with two major points of introduction that help in approaching these questions and others like them.

 

First, since both questions tend to revolve around issues of fairness and justice—is God being fair or just in the actions described—I think it’s helpful to share my methodological approach.  I recognize that there are difficult things described in the Bible.  There are actions undertaken by God or sanctioned by God that cause me to wonder, at the very least, “What’s going on there?” The Bible itself tells us there are “some things hard to understand” (2 Peter 3.16) so I shouldn’t be surprised when I find some of those things in the Bible.  Even some of God’s choice servants, like David, were angry and afraid of God when he did things they didn’t fully understand or seemed like an “over reaction” to their mind (see 2 Samuel 6.1-10 for one such event). 

 

In spite of all that, my default setting is to trust that God is just and loving.  A few items move me to this default setting. When confronted with message that God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins, Abraham asked the following question to the Lord, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Genesis 18.25)  Abraham was concerned that, maybe, there were some righteous people in the city and that if God judged the entire city then this would be an act of injustice.  Abraham confidently appeals to the justice of God in his conversation with God.  I, too, do the same.  I acknowledge the fundamental justice and goodness of God—“You are good and do good…” (Psalm 119.68)—and trust that his actions are good, even when I don’t readily see the apparent goodness of the actions.  But even more than Abraham, there is Jesus. I see in Jesus the perfections of God revealed in flesh—indeed, he is God-in-the-flesh.  I have experienced his incomparable kindness to me in that he laid down his life in an act of sacrificial and suffering heroism that demonstrates the profound love of God.  In light of this, I trust him.  He believed the Scriptures (what we call the “Old Testament”) unreservedly and so I trust his example.  This provides the grounds for my default setting of God’s goodness. It is an orientation of trust.

 

Now, this doesn’t mean the end of asking questions or wrestling with difficult issues. The questions and issues still need to be thought through to the best of our collective ability but the lack of an immediate answer or, better, the lack of a full answer that brings complete understanding, doesn’t require me to abandon what I do know about God’s goodness. That’s the first introductory point.

 

Second, it is crucial to get a proper conception of God in view since so often the failure to accurately understand God’s nature causes problems later in the interpretation of the Bible’s narratives.  You might remember from the lectures you attended that I spoke of God’s…

            

·     Unique Nature

·     Utter Significance

·     Ultimate Value

 

Then I unpacked God’s “Ultimate Value” under the rubric of God’s “glory.”  I spoke of God’s glory in terms of the following items:

 

·     Essential Being—who God is simply by virtue of his “God-ness.”

·     Excellent Deeds—it is good and value-producing to manifest his glory in doing mighty deeds.

·     Epistemic Goods—it is good that others come to know about God’s glory through the excellent deeds he has done.

 

This issue of God’s glory and the three-fold aspect mentioned above is going to be very important in answering both of your questions.  The problem is that we as humans are not predisposed to think much of God’s glory.  In fact, the Bible states that we would rather not think of God as all-glorious.  This is part of what it means when the apostle Paul in Romans 3.23 states: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” So we has humans are in a moral state of rebellion against God’s glory and this has epistemic consequences. And this is a nice segue into your first question…

 

“Only way to heaven is through accepting Christ, so what happens to civilizations that never had a shot at that?”

 

All peoples everywhere and from all periods of time will be judged by God.  A key issue to consider is: upon what basis does God render this judgment?  The answer from the Bible is that God judges peoples on the basis of the revelation of him that they had.  Now some peoples have never had a Bible or heard the name “Jesus.”  They are not judged on what they didn’t have. Rather, they are judged by God on the basis of what they did have—a general revelation in nature. Romans 1.18ff speaks to this issue of general revelation and it’s important to see its details.

 

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²²Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. ²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. ²⁵For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1.18-25)

 

Notice verse 20 which speaks about how a knowledge of God is “clearly seen… through what has been made.”  This produces a certain kind of knowledge of God—“they knew God” (verse 21).  Theologians call this general revelation in that it is available to all peoples everywhere—it is embedded in the created order. Since all peoples have this revelation there is a basis for judgment grounded in this general revelation. This is what the text develops. Verse 18 mentions the “wrath of God” being revealed against those who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” This suppression of truth happens when people “exchange the glory of the incorruptible God” (verse 23) for something less than God—idols.  The Bible’s perspective on idolatry—the worship of false gods—is penetrating. It involves both an ethical and epistemic component.  To turn away from the true God of glory is ethical rebellion.  One author referred to it as “cosmic treason.” If God is all-glorious and, thus, ultimately valuable, then to turn away from such a One and worship something of lesser value is immoral.  This immorality has cognitive consequences—“they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (verse 21).  Thus, people are in a state of darkness, both ethically and epistemically.  Our hearts and minds are dirty before God.  This text from Romans 1 provides the back-story on how it is that God can judge those who have never heard about the Bible or Jesus. God judges on what they did with his revelation given to them in nature.

 

Along with this I would add that judgment is not only based on the revelation available but the judgment is also proportionate to the revelation given.  In other words, to those who have a greater access to revelation in the Bible and Jesus they will have a greater judgment than those who did not have such revelation.  This is an ethical principle that Jesus taught:

 

²⁰ Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. 

²¹ "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 

²² "Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 

²³ "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 

²⁴ "Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."  (Matthew 11.20-24)

 

Jesus, here, rebukes the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum because they saw the Son of God performing miracles attesting to the presence of the power of God in their midst but they did not respond properly.  Because of this, these peoples will experience an even greater judgment than the paradigmatic wicked city of Sodom.

 

Now, I grant that these points about general revelation and proportionate judgment do not answer all the questions.  Someone can still ask, “Why did God choose to accomplish his plan of salvation by choosing one nation Israel from which to bring Jesus as the Savior of the world?”  To ask this question is to ask a variant of “the problem of evil” question.  And my answer to this is what I presented on in my second talk that you heard.  I think a variant of the “skeptical theism” (or, the better term, “sensibly humble theism”) response is warranted here.  I think that God must have a good reason to pursue this path of salvation but I am probably not in a proper spot cognitively or perceptually to discern that reason.  

 

Let me take a look at your second question…

 

“What’s up with God sending the plagues in Egypt?  Maybe Old Testament is below the belt territory, but children died in that right?”

 

The plagues of Egypt have to be seen in the context of God’s purposes in “redeeming” his people Israel.  To redeem is to set free from slavery.  Israel was God’s chosen people.  They were chosen to be the vehicle through which the knowledge of God would flow to the world.  Through a sequence of historical events the people Israel find themselves enslaved in Egypt—even after an Israelite (Joseph) had helped physically save the nation of Egypt from death many years before.  To get an idea as what Israel experienced I find the words of Christopher Wright helpful.  He is describing the nature of the redemption that Israel experienced.

 

“They were liberated from political oppression as an immigrant community into independent nation status. They were liberated from economic exploitation as a slave labour force into the freedom and sufficiency of a land of their own.  They were liberated from social violation of basic human rights as a victimized ethnic minority into an unprecedented opportunity to create a new kind of community based on equality and social justice.  They were liberated from spiritual bondage to Pharaoh and the other gods of Egypt into undeniable knowledge of and covenant relationship with the living God.”[1]

 

Since God has chosen Israel to be the bearers of the knowledge of God and, ultimately, to be the people through him he will send his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, God must act to redeem his people.  He must uphold the glory of his promise to his people. This is why sends the plagues. It is part of an act of great and extensive liberation that will have repercussions for millennia.  

 

Along with the above there are some key texts in the book of Exodus that state some of the reasons or purposes for which God sends the plagues.

 

³"But I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. ⁴"When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. ⁵ "The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst."

 Exodus 7.3-5

 

¹⁴"For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth. ¹⁵"For if by now I had put forth My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth. ¹⁶"But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth.                                                Exodus 9.14-16

 

¹Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them, ²and that you may tell in the hearing of your son, and of your grandson, how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I performed My signs among them, that you may know that I am the LORD."                                                            Exodus 10.1-2

 

Remember above about God’s glory?  Here is where that discussion intersects with this question.  God is supremely valuable (glorious) in his Essential Being.  In the Exodus he performs Excellent Deeds with the goal of having these deeds blossom into Epistemic Goods—that they being known by others.  At least three different audiences are to “know” something of God’s glory as displayed in the plagues and final deliverance: Pharaoh/Egyptians, Israel and the future generations of Israel, and the whole earth.  So in this great act of national liberation, God is simultaneously demonstrating the glory of who he is to the entirety of the nations—even to us today!  This glory manifested and known is a great good.

 

You mention the children during the plagues and a few comments should be made about this. Yes, children suffered along with their parents during the plagues in Egypt.  The children were also enmeshed in the entire system of idolatry and oppression that was Egypt.  I think of the “Hitler Youth” movement in Nazi Germany as an analogue. There is a deep organic connection between children and their parents.  Going beyond that, there is the idea of corporate representation by parents and also by the Pharaoh himself.  Pharaoh not only represented an Egyptian god, but was himself considered a god.  As such he represents his people.  When the true God comes to battle against this Pharaoh it is significantly a battle between gods and the people whom they call their own.  The book of Exodus brings out this dimension of divine conflict in Exodus 12.12:

 

12 'For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments -I am the LORD.  

 

The Pharaoh knew of this dynamic as well.  And remember, he had been warned repeatedly of the impending judgments but chose to make war against the God of Israel.  Think of modern warfare as somewhat (not exactly) analogous.  Let’s say a nation A engages in war with nation B.  Nation A is committing its resources and people to the conflict.  If it is a foolish war with horrific results then the leadership that started the war is responsible for these results. Pharaoh was waging war against the living God who was (and is) supremely valuable.  Pharaoh was committed to a regime of idolatry and oppression and pledged his “blood and treasure” in the war with the God of Israel.  If I can use this metaphor without making light of the situation, Pharaoh went “all-in” with his poker hand and even put in Egyptian children in the “pot.”  He knew what he was betting—he lost, and so did the children.

 

Let me say a quick word about the death of the firstborn through Egypt with the last plague.  In ancient cultures the firstborn son represented a father’s strength and continued life (Genesis 49.3).  Sons, particularly the firstborn son, were seen as perpetuating the family line with all of its distinctives.  So in Egypt, this would have meant the continuation of idolatry and oppression. Our twenty-first American culture is not like that.  We expect our children to grow up and go their own way—if it happens to be in alignment with their father, great, but the choice is always up to the child. One author states the matter this way:

 

“To put the matter differently, your father determined your identity, your training, your vocation.  He generated you not only biologically, but, shall we say, functionally… In other words, your paternity was responsible for much more than your genes; your father provided much more than school fees.  He established your vocation, your place in the culture, your identity, your place in the family.  This is the dynamic of a culture that is preindustrial and fundamentally characterized by agriculture, handcrafts, and small-time trade.”[2]

 

Thus, the firstborn sons of Egypt represented their strength projected into the future.  The firstborn of Pharaoh was essentially a “god-in-waiting.”  For once he took the throne he was considered a god.  In destroying the firstborn, God dealt a judgment on Egypt that rendered it impossible to continue to the same kind of idolatrous and oppressive culture.

 

And one more detail about the death of the firstborn… it was an act of retributive justice.  The book of Exodus begins the entire narrative with Pharaoh seeking to kill and exterminate all the newborn sons of the Israelites (Exodus 1.22).  This attempted extermination of the Jews was met with God’s judgment. The living God of Israel stopped the extermination and even gave Pharaoh and the Egyptians warning of what was coming if they did not listen to him in letting his people go.  This was a terrifying judgment but it was a just judgment.

 

I don’t think my thoughts answer everything but, hopefully, it’s a start for reflection.

---

     [1]Christopher Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament: Rediscovering the Roots of Our Faith(London: Marshall Pickering, 1992), 31—bold-face added.

     [2]D. A. Carson, Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed(Illinois: Crossway, 2012), 20.

Slavery in the Bible: Is the Good Book Really "Good?"--Christian Post

This a link to a short essay I wrote for the Christian Post...

Slavery in the Bible: Is the Good Book Really "Good?"

______________________________________

Here is the text with endnotes included...

Slavery and the Bible: Is the Good Book Really “Good?”

It was spoken less as a question and more as a challenge:

“Why does anyone think this is a good book?!”

Someone had brought up a number of pieces of the Old Testament legislation as examples to be mocked and this brought forth the incredulity regarding the Bible’s moral value.  In previous generations the Bible was seen as the “good book” but today it is more likely to be thought of as a work that is oppressive and morally deficient.

One of the particular items brought forward to show the Bible’s moral failure was the law contained in Exodus 21:20-21—with specific focus on verse 21:

²⁰If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.  ²¹If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

It was alleged that this ethical stipulation allowed Israelites to beat their slaves and, as long as they didn’t die within a day or two, everything was okay.

In light of such a law what kinds of answers can be given to the question, “Why does anyone think this is a good book?”  Actually, there are a number of things to be said in response!  The following provides a close reading of the law in Exodus 21:21 in light of both the immediate context as well as the larger narrative structure of the Bible.  This is done to model what a fair reading of the text looks like as well as strengthen the faith of those who affirm the Bible as a “good book.”

Reading the Details in Light of the Whole Bible

First, let us grant, for the sake of argument only, that this item mentioned in Exodus 21:21 is somehow morally deficient.  This, in and of itself, does not render the whole Bible less than good.  There are all sorts of transcendentally good things in the Bible: ethical stipulations centered in love, narratives of heroic and self-giving actions, beautiful poetry in praise of God than aligns with the human emotional element, and, ultimately, its portrayal of Jesus Christ as the unique Son of God both in his teaching and in his actions of redemptive healing.  In other words, to take one (or a few) ethical stipulations that one finds questionable and indict the whole Bible shows either a lack of literary sensitivity or a failure to read the entire Bible.

But is it the case that this law in Exodus 21:21 calls into question the moral integrity of the Bible?  Has the law been understood correctly in its larger contexts?  Consider the following analogy.  Take, as an example, the sentence, “A man cut a child open.”  This sentence is consistent with at least three different scenarios.  (1) A murderer killing a child with a knife, (2) A medical examiner performing an autopsy on a dead child’s body, and (3) A professional surgeon performing a life-saving operation on a child.  These three different scenarios are open to vastly different moral evaluations due to the varying contexts.  Simply analyzing the phrase “A man cut a child open” is insufficient.  Larger contextual issues must be taken into account to accurately assess what is going on.  The same is true for the legislation contained in Exodus 21:21.

Contextual Issues to Note

When examining this issue the numerous contexts should be kept in mind or else misunderstanding will soon set in.  First, the immediate context should be read and understood.  Exodus 21:21 appears in a section of the Mosaic law code dealing with issues of personal injury.  The law code distinguishes between pre-meditated murder and, what we would call, manslaughter (Exodus 21:12-14).  When coming to talk about how slaves are to be treated Exodus 21:20 states: “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.”  Old Testament specialist David L. Baker writing in the book The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament argues that the term “punished” in verse 20:

“[P]robably implies the death penalty, which means that a master who kills his slave is treated as a murderer and receives the same punishment as for killing a free person.  Thus the law provides some protection for slaves from cruel treatment by their masters, and recognizes the life of a slave to be of equal value to that of any other human being.”¹

Reading verse 21 in light of this context causes Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser to comment:

“The aim of this law was not to place the slave at the mercy of the master, but to restrict the master’s power over his slaves.  Simply put, proof was needed only of a master’s malice or of his murderous intent.  In cases where the slave lived ‘a day or two’ after the chastisement, the benefit of doubt was given to the master only because proof became more difficult.  But if the slave died immediately, no more proof was needed and presumably laws such as Exodus 21:12 would be operative.”²

Exodus 21:21 is thus setting a kind of statute of limitations to offer guidance on how to apply Exodus 21:20.  The law is thus not given to facilitate but, rather, to mitigate abuse.

Not only this, but just a few verses after Exodus 21:21 there is the following piece of legislation:

²⁶If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye.  ²⁷And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

A number of Old Testament specialists have argued that this legislation is almost unparalleled in the ancient Near East context.  Christopher Wright notes, “The inclusion of the ‘tooth’ indicates that the law does not intend only grievous bodily harm, but any unwarranted assault.  The basic humanity of the slave is given precedence over his property status.”³ This leads Wright to conclude:

“The law, if it were to have any meaningful legal (as distinct from merely charitable) force, must presuppose that there were some circumstances in which a slave could appeal to judicial authority against his own master, that in some situations a slave could have definite legal status as a person, notwithstanding his normal status as purchased property.”⁴

These laws bring us into a context which is far removed from Harriet Beecher Stowe’s description in Uncle Tom’s Cabin: “The legal power of the master amounts to an absolute despotism over body and soul,” and “there is no protection for the slave’s life.”

So back to the question: “Why does anyone think this is a good book?”  One answer is that someone who had to live in the ancient Near Eastern context outside of Israel would have found these provisions good.  They would have seen these laws as good because, as David Baker states, “slave abuse is considered in terms of human rights rather than property rights.”⁵

A second contextual issue to note is the placement of Exodus 21:21 in the larger context of the book of Exodus itself.  Old Testament scholar Joe Sprinkle notes that the specific legislative stipulations of Exodus 21-23 must be read in light of the larger narrative concerns of Exodus 19-24 and, beyond that, in light of the deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt.⁶  Sprinkle draws attention to the fact of the prominence and placement of slave laws in the Mosaic law in relation to other ancient Near Eastern law codes.  Sprinkle also notes that these provisions in Exodus 21 are intimately related to other laws in Exodus 22 regarding the sojourner, widow, orphan, and the poor.  He concludes:

“This is not accidental. The disadvantaged classes of Exod 22:22–27, the sojourner, the widow, the orphan, and the poor, were the very people most subject to becoming enslaved on the basis of unpaid debts. Israel itself had become enslaved in Egypt after entering it as sojourners, as the regulation itself suggests: “Do not oppress a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt” (Exod 23:9). The experience of Israel in Egypt recorded by the narrative is thus the basis for the motive clause promoting legal obedience.”⁷

Again, “Why does anyone think this is a good book?”  Those most subject to abuse due to their disadvantage class would find the provisions in the Mosaic law as protections rather than burdens.

Canonical Context: Keeping an Eye on the Big Picture

The Bible is a big book and is important to keep an eye on the large narrative that is moving in the Scriptures.  The Bible has as a beginning, an end, and a center-piece focused in Jesus Christ.  All these have relevance to how to interpret the issue of slavery in the Bible.  Consider the beginning.  In Genesis chapters one and two there is the creation of man and woman.  There is no slavery or provision for slavery.  James Hamilton aptly notes:

“We don’t know exactly when slavery was first practiced, but the first mention of it in the Bible comes when Noah curses the descendants of his youngest son: ‘Canaan will be cursed.  He will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers’ (Gen 9:25).  This shows that slavery was not part of God’s original good creation.  Rather, slavery is mentioned in response to the sin of Ham.”⁸

Moving to the end of the Bible we see that in the eternal state there is no slavery.  The fullness of freedom comes to all of God’s people and even the creation itself (Romans 8:21).  Thus, these two narrative markers—creation and glorification—reveal God’s intentionality with regards to slavery.  It was not the original design nor is it the eternal destination.  This may help explain why when the apostle Paul discusses various household relationships in his letters he quotes Scripture as undergirding the marriage relationship (Ephesians 5:31) and the parent/child relationship (Ephesians 6:2-3) but when he discusses the master and slave relationship he never quotes the Old Testament Scriptures.  The other two family relationships are grounded in creation but slavery is not so, therefore, he does not quote a supportive proof-text.

When coming to look at Jesus and his teaching it has often been noted that the words of Isaiah 66:1-2 are a template for Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom of God.

¹⁸The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, ¹⁹to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord (Luke 4:18-19)

It is Jesus’ intention and goal to bring about release for the captives.  Now some will note that Jesus did not go on a crusade to set free literal slaves from Roman oppression.  This is true but must be seen in light of Jesus’ larger Kingdom purposes.  He was going after the larger issue of slavery to sin (John 8:31-36).  The New Testament teaches the centrality of this liberation from sin and its consequences.  Furthermore, by doing this Jesus sets in motion a revolution that will ultimately do away with all slaveries in human history as God’s Kingdom purposes are worked out over time.

So again, the question, “Why would anyone think this is a good book?” has a number of relevant answers from this larger canonical context.  God’s goodness expressed in creation and God’s profound goodness promised in the future both give us positive reason to affirm the Bible’s goodness.  Of course, for Christians the central glory of Jesus Christ is the supreme goodness revealed to us in the pages of Scripture.  Ultimately, the revelation of Jesus himself contained in the Bible is the great reason to think the Bible is a “good book.”

Historical Considerations: How the Bible Influences History

The Kingdom revolution began by Jesus Christ in human history has moved through the corridor of time in influential ways regarding slavery.  Thomas Schirrmacher is the president of the International Council of the International Society for Human Rights and has written about the role of Christianity in the reduction of slavery in history and around the world.  He notes how the early church allowed the complete participation of slaves in their congregations.  Slaves were able to become clerics and bishops.  Schirrmacher draws attention to the most famous example—Bishop Kallist (d. 222 A.D.), “who went from slavery to become the highest representative of the church as Bishop of Rome.”⁹ He also draws attention to various Synods of the Church:

“The Synod of Chalons in France declared the following in 650 A.D.: ‘The highest piety and religion demands that Christianity be completely freed from the chains of slavery.’  in 922 A.D. the Koblenz Synod in the East Frankish Empire came to the resolution that the sale of a Christian was to be considered murder.’”¹⁰

Schirrmacher draws attention to a number of other medieval developments on this issue and then, of course, draws attention to the role of evangelical Christianity in the abolishing of slavery in England under the leadership of William Wilberforce.  He quotes the German scholar Egon Flaig as demonstrating that this opposition to slavery “is indebted to the longest and most intensive fight for the liberation of mankind.  Those who carried on this battle are not to be found in Enlightenment philosophy; where one makes a find is in the spiritual realm of Protestant minorities.”¹¹ Schirrmacher further notes:

“In 1975 Roger Anstey defended and documented the thesis that Evangelicals were so strongly opposed to slavery because they understood conversion and redemption to be from the slavery of sin into the freedom of the gospel, and for that reason could only view slavery negatively.  The fight against slavery was an ‘end in itself’ for Evangelicals and a moral truth that could not be surrendered.”¹²

Schirrmacher goes on to outline the evangelical contribution to the stand against slavery in America where some scholars estimate that two-thirds of the anti-slavery movement consisted of Evangelicals.

Yet once more, “Why would anyone think this is a good book?”  Well, it is this book that has provided the impetus for so many Christians throughout human history to work at great cost to end slavery.  The quest continues today.  Estimates of current-day slavery range from 27-100 million depending on the definition used.¹³ There are more slaves today than at any other time in human history!  This produces a fascinating historical irony.  Although the vast majority of nations today sign on to international treaties outlawing slavery there is more slavery today, whereas while the Bible mentions slavery in both the Old and New Testaments, it is the worldview flowing from the Bible that historically undermines the institution of slavery.¹⁴ Thomas Schirrmacher’s words are an apt conclusion to this short look at the Bible and slavery:

“The Old and New Testaments did not totally outlaw slavery in all circumstances, but the comprehensive provisions for the legal protection of servants and maidservants, as well as the right to be redeemed through the use of a slaves’ own possessions or by others, fundamentally distinguishes the slavery that is described there from the later slavery of the 15^th to the 18^th centuries and from the present, illegal slavery that occurs everywhere.  It is no wonder that …, the thought established itself that God was completely against modern slavery and that all slaves should be set free.”¹⁵

And we learned all this from the “Good Book”—the Bible.

Richard Klaus graduated from Phoenix Seminary and is a former pastor. He is currently the Ratio Christi (ratiochristi.org) Chapter Director for the campus of Glendale Community College (AZ). 

Endnotes:

1.     David L. Baker, “The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament” in The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament edited by Thomas Schirrmacher (Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 2015), 15-16.  Online: https://www.bucer.de/fileadmin/dateien/Dokumente/Buecher/WoT_8_-_Thomas_Schirrmacher__ed.__-_The_Humanization_of_Slavery_in_the_OT.pdf.

2.     Walter Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983), 102.

3.     Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 243.

4.     Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament, 244.

5.     David L. Baker, “The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament,” 16.

6.     Joe M. Sprinkle, “Law and Narrative in Exodus 19-23” Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society 47 (June, 2004), 241-242.

7.     Joe M. Sprinkle, “Law and Narrative in Exodus 19-23,” 245.

8.     James M. Hamilton, “Does the Bible Condone Slavery and Sexism?” 341.  Online: http://jimhamilton.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Does-the-Bible-Condone-Slavery-and-Sexism.pdf.

9.     Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and Today: With Special Research on ‘The Role of Evangelicals in the Abolition of Slavery’” in The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament, 56.

10. Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 58.

11. Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 62.

12. Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 66.

13. Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 71-72.

14. John Warwick Montgomery, “Slavery, Human Dignity and Human Rights” in The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament, 21-25.

15. Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 75.