7

President Barack Obama recently stated that many atrocities were done in the name of Christ. He went on to say that Slavery in the United States was also justified by Christianity.

Since he did not cite any Scripture, in his statement; I have searched the Gospels for any words of Jesus, which could be construed to support slavery; and have found none.

If Slavery was so justified as being defended in the name of Christ, I cannot find it.

Can anyone assist me in understanding the President's assertion?

curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
BYE
  • 13,299
  • 18
  • 62
  • 97
  • Also related and has some great answers that don't have as many upvotes as they should: Has the Church historically considered biblical texts concerning slavery to be transcultural or finite? –  Feb 16 '15 at 01:14
  • 1
    Considering your comments limiting verses to the Gospels and that your quote concerns a politician that doesn't even claim to be Christian, I feel like you are trying to pigeonhole answers into a little box. We don't have a close vote for that, but I'm going to opt for "unclear what you are asking". Also, the other three very similar questions show that the topic is deeper than your post reveals your knowledge of. –  Feb 16 '15 at 01:19
  • 2
    I think this is a good question, and not a duplicate. The one possible duplicate has been closed, as it was asked as a truth question. This one is much better scoped. The other question is asking how scripture is used to condemn slavery, which is decidedly not the same as this one. – Flimzy Feb 16 '15 at 15:16
  • 4
    Mod notice: Comments are not for debating slavery or American history, much less ISIS and the Middle East. Ya'll got way off track there. I've stripped the comments down to just the ones that deal with the the post itself. That's what comments are for: suggest improvements, ask for clarification or provide other post feedback. Save the discussion of the topical matter for another venue. – Caleb Feb 16 '15 at 17:20
  • @Flimzy It's still a crappy question for the other reasons I illuminate. Bye has shown in comments that he's not really asking for the history of how the Bible was used in the past regard this issue. He's trying to prove the bible actually does not support slavery (which it may or may not and is a matter of opinion) so he can later say, "see, the president was wrong." I would link to those comments, but it seems like Caleb deleted them. In short, this is not a real question, but it looks like a history question. –  Feb 16 '15 at 22:05
  • @fredsbend my question did not say anything about the Bible. What I asked was in defense of Christ, and what is Christianity. My objection to what the President said was that Jesus Christ was blamed for the atrocities of so called Christians, while absolving Mohammed of atrocities in his name. My point was that Jesus taught passivity and not hostility. If you do not feel that I am justified in defending true Christianity, you have the power to remove my question, however; you do not have the right to assign to me what you falsely consider my intent. I will at all times defend my Savior. – BYE Feb 17 '15 at 00:20
  • @Bye That's great and all, but question could be about Christians saying and doing certain things regarding slavery (a matter of history and on topic) or it is about what Christ actually taught regarding slavery (a matter of opinion and off topic without the doctrinal scope). You seem to be asking the latter question. If it is the former, then I suggest an edit. –  Feb 17 '15 at 01:39
  • @fredsbend: That would be a very poor reason to ask such a question, since it's asking for proof that cannot exist. But even if that is Bye's intention, I think the question itself is still a good one. – Flimzy Feb 17 '15 at 16:28
  • @Flimzy I think it could be. I don't think it is right now. What exactly do you think the question is, since you support it? –  Feb 17 '15 at 19:24
  • Well, I see the question as mixing concepts. The title is what I see as the core of the question, and I think is good. But since you've got me thinking, it is a bit odd, and now I'm not sure what is actually being asked. – Flimzy Feb 17 '15 at 19:29
  • It seems to me that the actual question you asked here is fine for this site but the one you meant to ask is not. How that happened I don't know, but you seem to be actually looking for something other than what you asked. This site doesn't deal in "true Christianity" would do or believe, but what specific groups at specific times did or believed is very much on topic. Do you want to run with the question as asked that would be appropriate on this site? – Caleb Feb 17 '15 at 20:33
  • @Caleb again even you have misinterpreted what I was seeking in my question. I meant the question exactly as it was stated, but judging from the reactions that I have received I feel it is better if the question is closed or deleted. I will just have to learn how to ask questions that leave no doubt in others minds as to what I am seeking. So please either close or delete it. – BYE Feb 17 '15 at 21:17

2 Answers2

5

Robert Bruce Mullin says in 'North America', published in A World History of Christianity (edited by Adrian Hastings), pages 437-8, that Southern religious figures claimed not only that was slavery a positive good, but that it was a Christian institution.

This slavery argument gained a specific religious dimension, and the northern Protestants faced a difficult question - how was slavery a sin? Did the Bible ever condemn slavery as sinful in its very nature, and if not, were there actions which were in fact sinful which the Bible did not recognise as sin? A close reading of Scripture demonstrated that the biblical authors seemed to accept slavery as an institution and nowhere explicitly condemned it, and Mullin says this theological question became a troubling aspect of the American crisis. He cites the Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878), who insisted, “nothing is obligatory upon the conscience but what [the Bible] enjoins; nothing can be sin but what it condemns.”

Dick Harfield
  • 14,500
  • 1
  • 26
  • 44
  • Thanks for the reference but it still does not answer my question about what Scripture can tie slavery to the teachings of Christ. – BYE Feb 15 '15 at 20:43
  • 1
    @Bye I read your question as: i) Title: "How was slavery in the U.S. justified by Christianity?" ii) Summary: Can anyone assist me in understanding the President's assertion? I believe I addressed that question. If there is anything else you would like me to address, you might like to clarify this in the question and I will do my best. – Dick Harfield Feb 15 '15 at 22:04
  • 6
    @Bye: Your question doesn't specifically require a scriptural answer, it asks how Christianity was used to justify slavery. Although I believe there are examples of scripture which can be used, I don't think it should be necessary to demonstrate the link. – Flimzy Feb 16 '15 at 15:15
4

You're correct that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus condone slavery--nor does he speak out against it. Outside the Gospels, numerous Bible passages have been used in defense of slavery through the years.

The starting point for Christian justification of slavery is Genesis 9:24-27.

When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave."

From this a tradition arose that the curse gave Canaan black skin, and that he subsequently migrated to Africa. Although these ideas can't be found in the Bible, they dovetailed with a pro-slavery narrative. Author Anthony Pagden explains:

This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument--rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science -- why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another.

Exodus 21 contains rules and regulations for slave owners. A male Hebrew sold into slavery had to be released after six years, but females and children born into slavery could be held for life under certain conditions. A male slave could choose to remain a slave in order to stay with his family.

Deuteronomy 15:12-14 liberalizes some of the rules for Hebrew slaves, especially concerning who can be freed and what type of severance a freed slave should be given.

If a member of your community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and works for you six years, in the seventh year you shall set that person free. And when you send a male slave out from you a free person, you shall not send him out empty-handed. Provide liberally out of your flock, your threshing floor, and your wine press, thus giving to him some of the bounty with which the Lord your God has blessed you.

Rules for foreigners sold into slavery can be found in Leviticus 25:44-46. Regardless of age or gender, they could be held for life and could be inherited as property.

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

That's probably the closest biblical match to slavery as it was practiced in the United States and Britain.

Slavery is taken for granted in many New Testament passages too. For example, in Ephesians 6:5-6 Paul1 says:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

This is followed a few verses later (Ephesians 6:9) with:

And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

The phrase "both of you have the same Master" can be--and has been--interpreted to mean Paul is giving instructions to Christian masters of Christian slaves.

Similar instructions appear in Colossians 3:22-4:1.

Titus 2:9-10 states:

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

Finally, 1 Peter 2:18-21 commands slaves to accept whatever harsh treatment their masters deal out.

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

These last two passages have no corresponding instructions for slaveholders.

In conclusion, the Bible contains many passages--in both the Old and New Testaments--that have been used to justify slavery.


1 Many modern scholars do not believe Paul wrote Titus, Ephesians, or Colossians, in part because they doubt the man who had said, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Galatians 3:28), and who urged Philemon to free Onesimus and accept him as a brother (Philemon 1:15-16), would have been so accommodating to slavery.

Bruce Alderman
  • 10,674
  • 6
  • 47
  • 81
  • Great answer. On your footnote, is that the only reason to doubt the Pauline authorship of those books? Seems like a weak argument. –  Feb 17 '15 at 20:04
  • I am accepting your answer, in hope that it will end the arguing associated with my question. Even though the bit about Cain having been marked with black skin makes no sense due to the eradication of humanity with the flood. – BYE Feb 17 '15 at 20:05
  • @fredsbend: That's one of the reasons. Other reasons are sentence structure and vocabulary, as well as a focus on church structure issues and a perceived lack of passion in the theology. – Bruce Alderman Feb 17 '15 at 20:10
  • 3
    @Bye I think I see some miss-understandnig about this site in your last comment. Remember questions on this site are not looking for truth, nor are answers expected to represent the most logical reading of Scripture. The question as you asked it (whether you meant to or not, it was worded properly for this site) is what Scriptures were used by a specific group of people to justify a cause. Whether their use of Scripture was appropriate or not, whether it makes sense or not, should not factor in at all. The question is: does this accurately represent what those Christians thought and did? – Caleb Feb 17 '15 at 20:30