Are biblical texts concerning slavery transcultural or finite? [closed]

Question

This question concerns cultural analysis as a principle in biblical hermeneutics, specifically the determination if a biblical statement has a finite application or if it is transcultural. But rather than get into an abstract discussion about cultural analysis which could easily veer off into discussion of gender roles, God-ordained war crimes, homosexuality, etc., I would specifically like to ask how the Bible's passages concerning slavery should be interpreted and applied today, especially in passages such as Exodus 21:2-11, Leviticus 25:44-46, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2.

What do you think is the application of these texts for today? Should Christians today apply these passages to employer/employee relations as many commentators have suggested, or is this an inappropriate cultural parallel?

Note that I am not asking, "Does the Bible condone slavery?" You may of course share your opinion on this question when giving your response (I understand that this question is somewhat implicit), but I am specifically interested in how we should interpret and apply these passages today.

Answer 1

Concerning the issue of it as transcultural, the answer is no. The Law was not given to the Akkadians, the Chinese or the Incans for them to obey. Note the following:

Set the trumpet to your lips! One like a vulture is over the house of the LORD, because they have transgressed my covenant and rebelled against my law. (Hosea 8:1)

Or similar:

They did not keep God's covenant, but refused to walk according to his law. (Psalm 78:10)

And this as well:

And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. (Deut 4:13)

Some want to make the law out as some universal thing when it was not. For ancient Judaism, the Mosaic covenant and the law were intertwined. Though some things found in the law are moral in nature and do appear to be universal ("Do not murder", etc.), the giving of the Law was a covenant made between God and Israel. You break the law, you break the covenant and will be chastised. You keep the law, you keep the covenant and will be blessed. Anyone who wishes to submit themselves to the Law from outside Israel could do so, and become proselytes. But God had no such covenant with the other nations. Therefore the Law as a whole clearly did not apply.

Also to be brought into the mix, note that in one of your verses it was noted that fellow Jews were not to be oppressed, though slaves could be taken from other nations. This also only makes sense in the context of the Mosaic covenant.

An interesting question, related but not determinative of this, is the question of what is really required by the covenant. Was it just the ten commandments or the rest of the Law? Though in a sense the ten commandments are "the covenant", clearly the rest of the Law was also required for full covenant obedience.

Pulling in a New Testament witness, let's see something from Paul.

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. (Romans 3:19)

Paul here is finishing up his statement that both Gentiles and Jews have an issue with sin. Here the Law speaks to those who are under it, i.e., the Jewish people.

Perhaps someone might try to draw some general principles from the commandment in the Law, but by definition the slavery commands in the law are not transcultural.

The 1 Tim passage is different though. In that case we are not talking about commands to the Jewish nation but to Christians, which were not just Jewish. In a sense you could say that even this was not transcultural because you can't really assume that a commandment was meant for unbelievers. But it at least transcends both Jewish and gentile cultures in the Christian community.

Does This Work For Employees?

I tend to think that 1 Tim 6 applies to employees, even though it clearly isn't stated. It makes sense for employees to honor their boss so that it gives the boss no reason to revile God or his people. I don't see anything different between slave and employee in this case.

Answer 2

The laws of God are for all people, all cultures for all time, unless the Bible specifically states otherwise (abrogration). The Psalmist says in Ps 19.7

"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul:"

in fact the New Testament defines sin as "the transgression of the law", so if the law didn't apply to everyone, then there would be no need for Jesus' sacrifice.

in Matthew 5:17-19,

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Certain laws were abrograted (fulfilled) by Jesus Christ, like circumcision, sabbath, food, ceremonial and sacrificial laws. God used the law as the standard to judge the heathen nations. They are in their essence the definition of right and wrong, they are our creator telling us how life works best (yes, they're more than that also). Some of the laws may not be relevant to our culture, but Paul teaches in 1 Cor 9:9 and 1 Tim 5:18 that we are to use the principles in the law and apply them to our modern situations. The principles (spirit) of the law transcend culture, time and space. Remember, if you don't choose to follow God's law, then you're following your own, thereby making yourself the God of your life.

Exodus 21:2-11

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

This is referencing a particular brand of Ancient slavery (there are many types of slavery). The specifics would only apply to slavery of that type, which isn't practiced by and large in our society today, but the principles could still be used. For example the seven year release, tying in with the laws on releasing debt, have been used in our modern bankruptcy laws.

Leviticus 25:44-46

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Again, a reference to a specific type of slavery that isn't being used in the modern "civilized" world.

1 Timothy 6:1-2

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Since the modern job is just a different more voluntary form of slavery, slightly more advanced than indentured servitude, this would certainly apply to all employees.

If you aren't in your own business (includes family businesses and homemakers), or unemployed then you are in the position of voluntary slavery.

Note that we are all slaves ultimately; either to sin or to God, the choice is yours (Romans 6:16).